← All Phrases

“Section 144(13)”

Section References (mined)Section 144Section 144(13)48 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 144(13) is Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT (116 ITD 1), cited in 41 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 144(13)

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT
116 ITD 1 · 2009 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

Income is chargeable to tax in India only to the extent it is reasonably attributable to operations carried out in India, especially when the amounts paid to associated enterprises are at arm's length.

Sudhir Kumar Shah (HUF) v. CIT-III, Ludhiana)
224 Taxmann 178 · 2014 · High Court
38
citing judgments

The addition of cash deposits to an assessee's income under Section 68 is justified when the Assessment Officer notices huge cash deposits, as the onus is on the assessee to explain their nature and source.

Agappa Child Centre v. CIT
226 ITR 211 · 1997 · High Court
33
citing judgments

A trust's exemption is cancelled if its property is used for the benefit of a person prohibited under section 13(3), or if the trust fails to accurately reflect its income, thereby not truly disclosing the income arising from trust property.

DIT v. Panalfa Autoelektrik Ltd.
272 CTR 117 · 2014 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Fees paid for securing export orders or for procurement of machinery are not fees for technical or managerial services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.

Dalmia v. CIT
106 ITR 895 · 1977 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

Management services involve the act of managing by direction, regulation, or superintendence, essentially controlling, directing, or administering a business.

K. Bhoir and Ors. v. Krishna Arjun Bhoir and Ors.
2 SCC 315 · 2009 · Reported
24
citing judgments

If assessment proceedings are wrongly initiated, the court can still entertain the action, and principles of estoppel, waiver, or res judicata do not prevent this.

330 250 Taxman 409/397 IT R 681 (Delhi), (b) Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT
52 Taxmann.com 356 · 2014 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamated company that no longer exists is void ab initio and cannot be treated as a procedural irregularity curable under section 292B.

R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanbhai P. Patel
3 SCC 96 · 1987 · Supreme Court
18
citing judgments

The date of dispatch of a notice under section 148 is the relevant date for determining if it has been validly issued, not the date of service. However, both issuance and service are mandatory jurisdictional requirements for reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148.

Judgments citing Section 144(13)

Tmeic Industrial Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned assessment orders dated

ITA 422/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.422/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tmeic Industrial Systems Vs. Dy. Cit India Private Limited Circle 2 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha Devdas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CAs, Kranthi Palivela and Mrudulatha DevdasFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144(13)Section 144B

assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (*Act") beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144(13) of the Act and therefore the order is void, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Erred in considering the transfer pricing ... period of limitation prescribed u/s 144(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR has submitted that, as per the provisions of section 144(13), the limitation to pass the final order expired on 31/07/2022. However, the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order on 4th August, 2022 which