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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
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:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2013 (6) TMI 312 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        Court Quashes Section 148 Notices for Re-opening Assessments The court quashed the notices under section 148 for re-opening assessments for multiple assessment years. It ruled that the Assessing Officer did not meet ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court Quashes Section 148 Notices for Re-opening Assessments

                          The court quashed the notices under section 148 for re-opening assessments for multiple assessment years. It ruled that the Assessing Officer did not meet the jurisdictional requirements for re-opening assessments beyond four years. Additionally, the re-opening for certain years was deemed impermissible as it was based on a change of opinion. The court allowed the petitions, making the rule absolute with no order as to costs.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for re-opening assessments.
                          2. Jurisdictional requirements for re-opening assessments beyond four years under section 147.
                          3. Assessment of the petitioner's eligibility for deductions under section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
                          4. Examination of whether the re-opening of assessments was based on a change of opinion.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Validity of Notices Issued Under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Re-opening Assessments:
                          The Petitioner challenged the validity of the notices issued under section 148 on 29 March 2012, which aimed to re-open assessments for the Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The re-opening for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07 occurred beyond the period of four years from the relevant assessment years, while the re-opening for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 was within four years. The reasons for re-opening were similar across all years.

                          2. Jurisdictional Requirements for Re-opening Assessments Beyond Four Years Under Section 147:
                          The court noted that under section 147, an assessment can only be re-opened if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. This jurisdictional requirement must be indicated in the reasons furnished to the assessee. The reasons disclosed by the Assessing Officer for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07 did not indicate any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts, thus failing to meet the jurisdictional requirements. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer cannot improve upon the reasons for re-opening the assessment or bridge the lacunae later.

                          3. Assessment of the Petitioner's Eligibility for Deductions Under Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
                          The Petitioner, a manufacturer of various products, had claimed deductions under section 80IB for several years. The original assessments for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07 were conducted under section 143(3), where detailed inquiries were made, and the deductions were allowed. The court found that the Assessing Officer had duly verified the eligibility for the deductions during the original assessments. The re-opening notices failed to provide new or tangible facts that would justify re-assessment.

                          4. Examination of Whether the Re-opening of Assessments Was Based on a Change of Opinion:
                          For A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09, the re-opening notices were within four years. However, the court highlighted that the original claim for deduction under section 80IB was allowed for A.Y. 2004-05, and the re-opening of assessments for subsequent years (2005-06 and 2006-07) was found unsustainable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which stated that re-opening assessments based on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. The court concluded that the re-opening of assessments for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 amounted to a change of opinion and was therefore unsustainable.

                          Conclusion:
                          The court quashed and set aside the notices under section 148 for re-opening the assessments for A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The court ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for re-opening assessments beyond four years and that the re-opening for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 was based on a change of opinion, which is not permissible. The petitions were allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found