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

        <h1>Court validates Income-tax Act sanction under section 147(a), allowing reassessment under section 144.</h1> <h3>RB. Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad And Fatechand Narsingdas (Export) Firm Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> RB. Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad And Fatechand Narsingdas (Export) Firm Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1988] 170 ITR 23, 63 CTR 76, 32 TAXMANN 487 Issues Involved: The judgment involves the validity of the sanction for action u/s 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, the timeliness of initiating action u/s 147(a), and the legality of reassessment made u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act.Validity of Sanction for Action u/s 147(a): The first question raised was whether the sanction received by the Income-tax Officer for initiating action u/s 147(a) was valid. The counsel agreed that it was covered by a previous judgment and must be answered in the affirmative in favor of the Revenue.Timeliness of Initiating Action u/s 147(a): The second question regarding the timeliness of initiating action u/s 147(a) was not pressed by the counsel, and thus, an answer to it was not required.Legality of Reassessment u/s 144: The third and disputed question was whether the reassessment made u/s 144 was legal. The argument presented was that a best judgment assessment under section 144 should not apply if section 147 has been invoked. The contention was that the provisions of section 144 should not be applicable when section 147 is used for income escaping assessment.Detailed Analysis: The judgment clarified that under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, if income has escaped assessment, the Income-tax Officer may reassess it subject to certain provisions. It was highlighted that section 144 applies after a notice is served under section 148, which is a prerequisite for assessment or reassessment under section 147. The argument was made that a best judgment assessment under section 144 should not be made when section 147 is invoked and the assessee fails to respond to the notice under section 148.Legal Reasoning: The court analyzed the provisions of the Income-tax Act and emphasized that both sections 144 and 147 allow for assessments made to the best judgment of the taxing authority. It was noted that the material available should be used for assessment under both sections, and the assessee can challenge the assessment based on the material presented. The court rejected the argument that the provisions of section 144 should be excluded when section 147 is invoked.Precedent and Conclusion: A previous court decision was cited to support the argument that reassessment under section 147 is not the same as an assessment under sections 143 or 144. The judgment concluded that when an assessee does not respond to a notice under section 148, the taxing authority can assess based on best judgment under section 144. The first and third questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, with the second question not being pressed. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the Revenue.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found