← All Phrases

“Section 159(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 159Section 159(3)15 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 159(3) is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 159(3)

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.
159 ITR 71 · 1986 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

Savita Kapila v. ACIT
118 Taxmann.com 46 · 2020 · High Court
98
citing judgments

There is no legal requirement for a legal representative to report an assessee's death to the income tax department; consequently, a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is invalid as it lacks proper jurisdiction.

Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT
280 ITR 396 · 2006 · High Court
68
citing judgments

Section 292B of the Income Tax Act applies only to procedural irregularities and cannot cure fundamental jurisdictional defects, such as the non-issue of a mandatory Section 148 notice for reassessment or framing an assessment against a non-existing or dead person.

Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT
53 SOT 159 · 2012 · ITAT
57
citing judgments

Companies with significantly different turnovers (e.g., one above Rs. 200 crores and another below) cannot be considered comparable in transfer pricing analysis. Turnover is a relevant factor in assessing comparability.

Pawan Kumar v. PCIT
159 Taxmann.com 61 · 2024 · ITAT
55
citing judgments

The ITAT distinguishes the case of Pawan Kumar v. PCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 61 (Del.-Trib.) in the context of assessing interest on enhanced land acquisition compensation.

Pandit Bros. v. CIT
26 ITR 159 · 1954 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Low profits alone, or minor defects such as the non-maintenance of a stock register, do not justify the rejection of regularly maintained books of account under Section 145, nor do they permit additions to income without proving specific errors.

(5)) 3.12. DCIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd.
114 ITD 159 · 2008 · ITAT
44
citing judgments

An assessee has the option to choose between the provisions of the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) in any given year, and the non-election of DTAA benefits in one year does not prevent claiming them in subsequent years.

Judgments citing Section 159(3)

Estate of Arjun Das Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.373/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Estate Of Arjun Das Agarwal………………………… ........................……Appellant Flat No.3B, 19-B, Richie Road, Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Aabae1990M] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(3), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By Estate Of Arjun Das Agarwal Through Sri Vivek Agarwal In A Representive Capacity, Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-13 Was Filed By Sri Arjun Dass Agarwal During His Life Time On 31.03.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,43,159/- & The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26.07.2014. Shri Arjun Dass Agarwal Died On 11.12.2015. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Received Some Information Regarding Transaction Of Immovable Property Done By Sri

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

have been taken against the deceased, if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative and further that as per sub section 159(3) of the Act, the legal representative of the deceased shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be an assessee