Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 :

        1979 (8) TMI 37 - HC - Wealth-tax

        📋
        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

        WTO Reassessment Proceedings Quashed for Lack of Independent Consideration The court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the WTO lacked independent application of mind, following directions mechanically. ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          WTO Reassessment Proceedings Quashed for Lack of Independent Consideration

                          The court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the WTO lacked independent application of mind, following directions mechanically. Consequently, the court issued a writ of certiorari setting aside the notice and related proceedings. A writ of mandamus directed the respondents to disregard the notice and refrain from further action. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, making the rule absolute and staying the order's operation for four weeks, with no costs awarded.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Jurisdiction of the WTO to issue notice under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
                          2. Alleged escape of wealth chargeable to tax.
                          3. Validity of the information and belief held by the WTO.
                          4. Full and true disclosure of material facts by the petitioner.
                          5. Reassessment based on new material or different valuation methods.
                          6. Alleged collateral purpose and fishing investigation.
                          7. Recording of reasons for issuing the notice.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          Jurisdiction of the WTO to Issue Notice under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:
                          The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the WTO to issue the notice dated 26th March 1974, under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The petitioner contended that the conditions precedent necessary to confer jurisdiction on the WTO to initiate proceedings under Section 17 were not in existence. Specifically, the petitioner argued that there was no wealth of the family chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act.

                          Alleged Escape of Wealth Chargeable to Tax:
                          The WTO reopened the wealth-tax assessment for the year 1969-70 on the basis of information received that the original assessment had underassessed the wealth. The information was conveyed through a series of letters from various tax authorities, indicating that the shares of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. owned by the family were not regularly quoted and that the disclosed quotations were below the fair market value. The WTO concluded that wealth to the extent of Rs. 96,272 had escaped assessment.

                          Validity of the Information and Belief Held by the WTO:
                          The petitioner argued that the WTO had or could have no reason or material to believe that any wealth had escaped assessment. The petitioner contended that the WTO did not hold any belief as required under Section 17 of the Act and that all primary and material facts necessary for the assessment were fully and truly disclosed. The petitioner further argued that there was no new material or fact from any external source that had come into the possession of the WTO.

                          Full and True Disclosure of Material Facts by the Petitioner:
                          The petitioner maintained that there was no omission or failure to disclose fully and truly any primary or material fact necessary for the assessment. The shares in question had been regularly quoted in the stock exchange in Calcutta since 1960, and each assessment had been made according to the relevant market quotation.

                          Reassessment Based on New Material or Different Valuation Methods:
                          The petitioner contended that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion and a different method of valuation, which was not authorized in law. The original assessment had accepted the valuation of shares based on stock exchange quotations, and there was no error in that method. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd., which held that the absence of an error in the original assessment would justify the inference that it was not a case of income escaping assessment.

                          Alleged Collateral Purpose and Fishing Investigation:
                          The petitioner argued that the impugned proceedings were initiated for a collateral purpose and to conduct a fishing and roving investigation, contrary to law. The letters from the tax authorities did not constitute "information" within the meaning of Section 17 of the W.T. Act, nor did they establish any failure or omission by the petitioner to disclose material facts.

                          Recording of Reasons for Issuing the Notice:
                          The petitioner contended that the WTO did not record any reasons for issuing the impugned notice as required by law. The reasons recorded on the same day as the letter from the ITO, Special Investigation Branch, were issued, indicating a lack of independent application of mind by the WTO. The Supreme Court's observation in Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Secretary (Food and Agriculture), Government of Andhra Pradesh, was cited, stating that any "request" of the Government to a subordinate authority is tantamount to a positive direction or order.

                          Conclusion:
                          The court concluded that the WTO initiated reassessment proceedings by mechanically following the directions in the letter dated 26th March 1974, without independently applying his mind. The court held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated and issued a writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned notice and the proceedings and orders made pursuant thereto. A writ of mandamus was also issued, directing the respondents not to give any effect to the said notice and not to take any further steps in pursuance thereof. The rule was made absolute, and there was no order as to costs. The operation of the order was stayed for four weeks.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found