Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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 reassessment notice under Section 148 for lack of new material.

        Madhukar Khosla Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

        Madhukar Khosla Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - [2014] 367 ITR 165 (Del) Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment.
        2. Validity of the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer (AO) for reopening the assessment.
        3. Whether the reopening of assessment constitutes a change of opinion.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legality of the Notice under Section 148:
        The petitioner challenged the notice dated 25.03.2013 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which proposed to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 28.03.2008. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without any new tangible material and was merely a change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 147.

        2. Validity of the Reasons Provided by the AO:
        The reasons for reopening the assessment were that the petitioner had added Rs. 25,31,003 to its capital account without providing an explanation during the original assessment proceedings. The AO believed that this amount should be brought to tax under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to the absence of documentary evidence for the source of the addition. The petitioner argued that all material facts were fully and truly disclosed during the original assessment, and the reopening was based on the same information, which amounted to a change of opinion.

        3. Whether the Reopening Constitutes a Change of Opinion:
        The petitioner contended that the reopening was based on the same information that was available during the original assessment, and thus it was a case of change of opinion. The AO, however, argued that the issues on which the case was reopened were not discussed earlier, and therefore, it was not a change of opinion. The AO further stated that the onus was on the assessee to provide full and complete details during the earlier proceedings, which the petitioner failed to do.

        Court's Analysis and Judgment:
        The court examined the scope of the phrase 'reasons to believe' under Section 147, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in various decisions. It was emphasized that the reasons must be based on tangible material and should have a live link with the formation of the belief that income has escaped assessment. The court noted that no new information or tangible material was provided by the AO to justify the reopening. The reasons cited were merely a reappreciation of the facts already available during the original assessment.

        The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which held that the AO has no power to review an assessment and can only reassess based on tangible material indicating escapement of income. The court also referred to its own decision in CIT-V v. Orient Craft Ltd., which reiterated that the requirement of 'reasons to believe' applies equally to assessments completed under Section 143(1) and Section 143(3).

        The court concluded that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment did not meet the required standards as they were not based on any new tangible material. The reopening was, therefore, deemed to be an impermissible review or change of opinion.

        Conclusion:
        The court quashed the impugned reassessment notice under Section 148, holding that it was not based on any new tangible material and amounted to a change of opinion. The writ petition was allowed, and the pending application was disposed of without any order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found