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>Court Upholds Validity of Notice under Income Tax Act for 2012-13 Assessment</h1> <h3>MEGHAVI MINERALS PVT. LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3 (1)</h3> The court upheld the legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13. It found ... Reopening of the assessment for u/s 147 - whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act for the purpose of reopening of the assessment deserves to be quashed and set aside? - HELD THAT:- There is a total non-application of mind on the part of the AO while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. It also cannot be said that his conclusion was merely based on the observations and information received from the Investigation Wing. AO could be said to have applied his mind to the same. AO could not be said to have merely concluded without verifying the facts that it is the case of reopening of the assessment. No merit in the vociferous submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant that the contents of the reasons recorded by the AO for the reopening of the assessment is merely an introduction about the investigations conducted by the Investigation Wing, the modus operandi of the entry provided, the summing up of inquiry of the Investigation Wing, the information received from the Investigation Wing etc. As examined the belief of the AO to a limited extent to look into whether there was sufficient material available on record for the AO to form a reasonable belief and whether there was a live link existing of the material and the income chargeable to tax that escaped assessment. The case on hand is not one where it could be argued that the AO, on absolutely vague or unspecific information, initiated the proceedings of reassessment without taking the pains to form his own belief in respect of such materials. Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Sufficiency and correctness of the reasons for reopening the assessment.3. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer in forming the belief that income has escaped assessment.4. The existence of a live link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief.5. Compliance with the principles governing the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The writ applicant challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13, arguing that the reasons for reopening were factually incorrect and that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment based on these incorrect reasons. The court examined whether the impugned notice for reopening the assessment deserved to be quashed and set aside.2. Sufficiency and Correctness of the Reasons for Reopening the Assessment:The AO recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, stating that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000 from Pravinkumar Jain during the year under consideration. The AO noted that the assessee did not furnish any details or relevant documents regarding these accommodation entries. The court emphasized that at the commencement of reassessment proceedings, the AO needs to see if there is prima facie material justifying the reopening of the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not to be considered at that stage.3. Application of Mind by the Assessing Officer in Forming the Belief that Income has Escaped Assessment:The court highlighted that the basic requirement for reopening an assessment is the application of mind by the AO to the materials produced before reopening the assessment. The AO must conclude that there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The court found that the AO had applied his mind to the information received and did not merely rely on the Investigation Wing's report without verification.4. The Existence of a Live Link Between the Tangible Material and the Formation of the Belief:The court noted that the reasons recorded by the AO should demonstrate a link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief that income has escaped assessment. The reasons must be self-evident and speak for themselves. The court found that the AO had sufficient material on record to form a reasonable belief and that there was a live link between the material and the income chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment.5. Compliance with the Principles Governing the Reopening of Assessment Under Section 147 of the Act:The court summarized the principles governing the reopening of assessments, including that the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 can only be tested by reference to the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act. The AO must have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, and this belief must be based on tangible material. The court found that the AO had complied with these principles and that the reopening of the assessment was justified.Conclusion:The court concluded that there was no non-application of mind on the part of the AO and that the AO had formed his belief based on sufficient material. The court rejected the writ application, finding that no case was made out for interference. The writ application was thereby dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found