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 rules tax proceedings time-barred due to lack of disclosure, sets aside orders.</h1> <h3>IBS Software Services Pvt Ltd Versus The Union of India And Others</h3> IBS Software Services Pvt Ltd Versus The Union of India And Others - [2015] 379 ITR 66 (Ker) Issues Involved:1. Sustainability of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, initiated beyond four years on the ground of failure to 'fully and truly disclose all material facts.'2. Validity of re-opening assessments for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07.3. Examination of whether the assessee's conduct constituted a lack of full and true disclosure of material facts.4. Applicability of various legal precedents and interpretations of relevant provisions of the IT Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Sustainability of Proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The central question was whether proceedings under Section 147, initiated to reassess escaped income beyond four years, were sustainable due to the assessee's failure to 'fully and truly disclose all material facts.' According to Section 147, reassessment is permissible if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The first proviso to Section 147 allows reopening of assessment after four years only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139, respond to notices under Sections 142(1) or 148, or disclose all material facts fully and truly.2. Validity of Re-opening Assessments for the Years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07:The assessments for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 were reopened on the grounds that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The notices for reopening were issued within six years but beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. The Department contended that the exemption granted under Section 10A was incorrect due to the assessee's non-disclosure of the Business Corporation Agreement (BCA), which indicated that the business was formed by splitting up or reconstructing an existing business.3. Examination of Whether the Assessee's Conduct Constituted a Lack of Full and True Disclosure of Material Facts:The court examined whether the assessee's conduct constituted a lack of full and true disclosure of material facts. The assessee argued that the BCA was produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment for the year 2003-04, thus refuting the Department's claim of non-disclosure. The court found that the BCA was indeed available in the records before the completion of the assessment for 2003-04, and thus, there was no absence of full and true disclosure for the subsequent years.4. Applicability of Various Legal Precedents and Interpretations of Relevant Provisions of the IT Act:The court considered several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, which held that mere production of account books or evidence does not amount to full disclosure if material facts are not fully and truly disclosed. The court also referred to decisions such as Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Popular Vehicles & Service Ltd., which discussed the concept of 'reason to believe' and the adequacy of reasons for reopening assessments.Conclusion:The court concluded that the proceedings under Section 147 were not sustainable as they were initiated beyond four years without sufficient grounds for alleging a lack of full and true disclosure of material facts by the assessee. The court found that the BCA was available in the records before the completion of the assessment for 2003-04, and thus, there was no absence of full and true disclosure. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed. The proceedings were deemed to be hit by limitation, and the period could not be extended by two years as provided under Section 153 of the IT Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found