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>Tribunal invalidates reassessment for lack of reasons, emphasizes natural justice</h1> <h3>M/s Jagat Talkies Distributors Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-29 (1), New Delhi</h3> M/s Jagat Talkies Distributors Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-29 (1), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Non-communication of reasons for reopening the assessment.3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Section 148:The central issue in these appeals was the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide the recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, despite specific requests. The Tribunal had previously remanded the issue to the AO for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO & Others, which mandates that reasons for reopening must be furnished to the assessee.2. Non-communication of Reasons for Reopening the Assessment:The assessee argued that the AO failed to supply the reasons for reopening the assessment, which is a prerequisite for valid reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a specific request for these reasons, which was ignored by the AO. The CIT(A) acknowledged that the reasons were not formally communicated to the assessee. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT, the Tribunal held that non-communication of reasons vitiates the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the requirement to record and communicate reasons is designed to prevent arbitrary reopening of assessments.3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The assessee also contended that the reassessment orders violated the principles of natural justice as they were passed without providing an opportunity to contest the reasons for reopening. The Tribunal agreed, citing the necessity for the AO to furnish reasons and allow the assessee to file objections. The Tribunal found that the failure to communicate the reasons deprived the assessee of the opportunity to contest the reassessment, thus violating natural justice principles.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the AO's failure to provide the recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, despite the assessee's specific requests. This failure rendered the entire reassessment process and the resultant assessment orders void. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05, allowing the appeals in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal did not adjudicate other grounds of appeal on merits, as the reassessment proceedings themselves were found to be invalid.Decision:All appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the reassessment orders under Section 143(3)/148 were quashed. The decision was pronounced in the open Court on 10th June, 2015.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found