← All Phrases

“finality of assessment”

MiscellaneousDoctrine of MergerDoctrine of Merger40 judgments

The decision most relied on for finality of assessment is Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (106 ITR 1), cited in 486 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on finality of assessment

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO
106 ITR 1 · 1977 · Supreme Court
486
citing judgments

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd.
49 Taxmann.com 172 · 2014 · High Court
331
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153A are initiated only if assessment/reassessment proceedings are pending on the date of search/requisition. Already finalized assessments for the years covered under Section 153A do not abate.

CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 57 · 2019 · Supreme Court
306
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by assesses is no longer res integra. The court elaborately dealt with this issue.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.
445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court
269
citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

Lalji Haridas v. ITO
43 ITR 387 · 1961 · Supreme Court
238
citing judgments

When an assessing authority is uncertain about the true ownership of funds or in whose hands income should be assessed, it can frame a protective assessment to safeguard the Revenue's interest. Such protective assessments remain valid until the substantive assessment is finalized.

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.
376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO
191 ITR 662 · 1991 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

For the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a), it is essential to have 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, based on relevant material. The AO's subjective satisfaction and the final outcome of the proceedings are not relevant at the initiation stage.

Judgments citing finality of assessment

Rajnish Chamanlal Bharti, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(3)/30(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5826/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5826/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Rajnish C. Bharti बिधम/ Ito-24(2)(3)/30(2)(3) 506B, Rajendra Vihar Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai. Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb6150F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C. V. Jain Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22 /11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-41, Mumbai Dated 03.08.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts, In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ld Cit (A)] Has Erred In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. A.0) Without Having Any Lawful Jurisdiction As- A. There Were No Cogent Reasons To Believe That The Income Had Escaped Assessment & Accordingly The Provisions Of Section 147 & 148 Were Not Applicable To The Case

For Appellant: Shri C. V. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment/re- assessment. The concept of assessment is governed by the time barring rule; and the assessee acquires a right as to the finality of assessment proceedings. Quietus of the completed assessment can be disturbed only when there is information or evidence regarding undisclosed income or AO had information