Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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 quashes reassessment for lack of material & jurisdiction, rules in favor of assessee on validity issue.</h1> <h3>Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal Versus The Income Tax Officer</h3> The tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 due to lack of new tangible material and ... Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that:- AO has reviewed the assessment order which is not allowed under the Act. The ld. AO did not bring any tangible material on record to show that the income has escaped assessment. Therefore, considering the above factual position and the case law, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. Issues Involved:1. Legality and jurisdiction of reassessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of the exemption claim under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Jurisdiction of Reassessment under Sections 147/148:The primary issue in the appeal was whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 were legal and within jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a notice under Section 148, believing that the assessee's income had escaped assessment due to an excess exemption claim of Rs. 13,45,760 under Section 54F. The AO's belief was based on the fact that the assessee had invested in a property and claimed an exemption which was not shown in the original assessment.The assessee contended that the reopening of the assessment was without jurisdiction and illegal. It was argued that all relevant documents and papers were available during the original assessment under Section 143(3), and no new tangible material was brought on record by the AO to justify the reopening. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents, including the case of Mahesh Pal Arora Vs. ITO, where it was held that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material.The tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the AO had reviewed the original assessment order without bringing any new evidence to indicate that income had escaped assessment. The tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd, which supported the view that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that there was no valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.2. Validity of the Exemption Claim under Section 54F:The second issue was whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption claimed under Section 54F for the investment in a residential property. The AO had added Rs. 13,45,760 to the assessee's income, denying the exemption on the grounds that the property was not purchased within the stipulated time frame.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee had taken possession of the property on 10.01.2007, which was beyond the two-year period from the date of the capital gain. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 54F as the purchase was not completed within the required time frame.The assessee argued that the exemption under Section 54F should be allowed as the investment was made within the stipulated period, and the possession date should not affect the exemption claim. The assessee cited various case laws to support the claim.However, since the tribunal had already quashed the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and tangible material, it did not adjudicate the merits of the exemption claim under Section 54F, rendering this issue infructuous.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 due to lack of new tangible material and jurisdiction. Consequently, the tribunal did not address the merits of the exemption claim under Section 54F, as the primary issue of reassessment validity was decided in favor of the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 19/10/2016.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found