Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>High Court upholds validity of assessment reopening under Income-tax Act</h1> The High Court held that the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was ... Income Tax Act, Revenue Receipt Issues Involved:1. Validity of reopening assessments under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Reopening Assessments under Section 147(a)The principal question referred to the High Court was whether the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 was valid and proper in law under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.1. Background and Facts:- The assessee's original assessments for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 were completed under section 143(3) of the Act.- During the assessment proceedings for 1967-68, a partner from Messrs. Madhusudan Gordhandas deposed that loans amounting to Rs. 4,50,000 shown in the assessee's books were bogus.- Based on this deposition, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) initiated proceedings under section 147(a), believing the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material particulars, resulting in income escapement.2. Assessee's Contention:- The assessee argued that he had made a full and true disclosure by producing confirmatory letters from the creditors during the original assessment.- It was contended that the ITO, having accepted these letters, could not reopen the assessment under section 147(a) based on subsequent information, as it should fall under section 147(b).3. Appellate Authorities' Findings:- The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, noting that the fresh information about the bogus nature of the loans justified the reopening under section 147(a).- The AAC emphasized that the partner's deposition was specific, reliable, and stood the cross-examination, while the assessee failed to provide counter-evidence.4. High Court's Analysis:- The High Court reviewed the conditions for reopening under section 147(a): (a) reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and (b) such escapement was due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.- The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456, which clarified that acquiring fresh, specific, and reliable information exposing the falsity of the original disclosure allows reopening under section 147(a).- The court noted that the Supreme Court had distinguished between drawing fresh inferences from existing facts and acquiring new information that reveals falsehood in the original facts presented.5. Supreme Court Precedents:- The court addressed the assessee's reliance on Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 and CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609, explaining that these decisions did not conflict with Phool Chand Bajrang Lal.- The Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal had clarified that the disclosure of primary facts must be true and full, and if subsequent information reveals falsity, reopening is justified.6. Court's Conclusion:- The High Court concluded that the reopening of assessments was valid as the ITO had acquired specific and reliable information post-original assessment, indicating false disclosures.- The court dismissed the argument that the information was not reliable, stating that the deposition of the partner was specific and credible.- The Tribunal's decision to uphold the reassessment was affirmed, and the question was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.Judgment:The High Court held that the reopening of the assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 under section 147(a) was valid and proper in law. The question referred was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs was made.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found