“Section 150(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 150(2) is 1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. (53 ITR 231), cited in 158 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 150(2)
Income-tax assessment proceedings are administrative in nature, not civil disputes or judicial proceedings between contesting parties. Income-tax authorities act as administrative bodies to estimate income and assess tax, and the proper service of notice within the limitation period is foundational for reassessment jurisdiction.
A 'direction' issued by an appellate or revisional authority under Sections 150(1) or 153(3) of the Income-tax Act must be a specific, clear, and mandatory positive command requiring action, and not merely an observation or finding, to be legally effective.
Providing corporate guarantee does not constitute an international transaction if it involves no cost to the assessee and has no bearing on profits, income, loss, or assets, even after amendment to Explanation to Section 92B.
Section 148 notices can be issued at any time for assessments or reassessments made in consequence of or to give effect to any final finding, direction, or order of any higher authority.
The Supreme Court rejects revenue's appeal in a case concerning the assessment of income, indicating a procedural aspect or a specific issue of law was affirmed. The case involves scrutiny assessments under Section 143(2) and potentially reassessment under Sections 147/148.
The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.
The Delhi High Court decision in Gookluck Automobils P. Ltd. v. ACIT is cited for a proposition, but the provided passages are incomplete and do not reveal the specific holding.
The proposition of law for which this case is cited is not clearly ascertainable from the provided passages, as they only list it as a cited case without detailing the specific legal point decided. However, its prominent placement with sections 147, 148, and 132 suggests it relates to reassessment or search and seizure proceedings.
