TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of petitioners, quashes notices under Income-tax Act. Procedural compliance emphasized.</h1> <h3>Lakhanpal National Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Assessment)</h3> Lakhanpal National Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Assessment) - [1996] 222 ITR 151, 135 CTR 150, 90 TAXMANN 12 Issues Involved: Challenging validity of proceedings u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 during pending assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act.Special Civil Application No. 1047 of 1996:The petitioner, a public limited company, challenged the notice u/s 154 issued during assessment proceedings for the year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer had already passed an order u/s 143(1)(a) accepting the loss claimed by the petitioner. Subsequently, a notice u/s 143(2) was issued, followed by proceedings u/s 143(3) leading to the final assessment order. However, a notice u/s 154 was issued regarding disallowance of royalty amount, which the petitioner challenged. The court held that once notice u/s 143(2) is issued, the assessment must be completed u/s 143(3), and there is no need for a notice u/s 154(1)(b) after the assessment is already completed. The impugned notice u/s 154 was quashed and set aside.Special Civil Application No. 2178 of 1996:In this case, another public limited company challenged the notice u/s 154 issued after the assessment proceedings for the year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer had already passed an order u/s 143(1)(a) accepting the depreciation claimed by the petitioner. Subsequently, a notice u/s 143(2) was issued, followed by a notice u/s 154 which the petitioner objected to. The court held that once the assessment is completed u/s 143(3), there is no requirement for a notice u/s 154(1)(b) and the Assessing Officer must follow the procedure under section 143(3) after issuing notice u/s 143(2). The impugned notice u/s 154, order passed u/s 154, and demand under section 156 were quashed and set aside in this case as well.In both matters, the court found in favor of the petitioners, quashing the impugned notices u/s 154 and setting aside the subsequent orders. The court emphasized the procedural requirements under the Income-tax Act, specifically the necessity to complete assessments u/s 143(3) after issuing notices u/s 143(2), without the need for additional notices u/s 154(1)(b) once the assessment process is initiated.
TaxTMI 