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 re-assessment order and proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Writ petition allowed.

        Oriental Bank of Commerce Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

        Oriental Bank of Commerce Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Validity of the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2013.
        2. Jurisdiction of the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
        3. Failure to disclose material facts by the assessee.
        4. Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
        5. Addition of income not originally stated in the re-assessment notice.
        6. Time-barred reassessment for earlier years.
        7. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 148 and 147 of the Income Tax Act.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Validity of the Re-assessment Order:
        The writ petition challenges the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2013, claiming it was issued without jurisdiction. The original assessment was completed on 20.03.2006, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.03.2012, beyond the four-year period, invoking the first proviso to Section 147. The reasons for re-opening the case were related to the assessee's failure to disclose certain facts and the short levy of interest under Section 234D.

        2. Jurisdiction of the Re-assessment Proceedings:
        The petitioner argued that no additions were made based on the original reasons (a) and (b) provided for re-opening the assessment. Instead, the re-assessment focused on a new issue regarding the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia). The court found that the re-assessment order did not pertain to the assessment year 2005-06 but to preceding years, which was not the subject matter of the original notice under Section 148.

        3. Failure to Disclose Material Facts by the Assessee:
        The court noted that the reasons for re-opening the assessment did not specify which material facts were not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee. The reasons indicated a mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer rather than a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts.

        4. Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:
        The court held that the re-assessment order amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. The specific issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was raised and answered during the original assessment proceedings, and no disallowance was made at that time.

        5. Addition of Income Not Originally Stated in the Re-assessment Notice:
        The court referred to various judgments, including Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Jet Airways (I) Ltd., which established that if no additions are made based on the original reasons for re-opening the assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot independently assess some other income without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148.

        6. Time-barred Reassessment for Earlier Years:
        The court found that the disallowance of Rs. 453,96,44,854/- pertained to an earlier year, which was not the subject matter of the re-assessment and was time-barred. The reassessment for an earlier year was impermissible as it would amount to a change of opinion.

        7. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Sections 148 and 147:
        The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 148 and 147. The reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment must be recorded before issuing a notice under Section 148. The note-sheet entry of 16.03.2013 could not be regarded as a notice under Section 148 or as reasons to believe.

        Conclusion:
        The court quashed the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2013 and the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2012 under Section 148, deeming them without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found