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 quashes reassessment due to lack of new material, upholds legal standards</h1> <h3>Mrs. Selvam Seethalakshmi Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (3), Trichy.</h3> Mrs. Selvam Seethalakshmi Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (3), Trichy. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Reopening of assessment and assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) read with 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of reassessment without fresh or tangible material.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Reopening of Assessment and Assumption of Jurisdiction:The first issue raised by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment under sections 143(3) read with 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the reassessment was invalid as it was passed out of time, without jurisdiction, and not sustainable both on facts and in law. The original assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 was completed under section 143(3) on 28.03.2016. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening the assessment on the issue of violation of provisions of section 40A(3) regarding a cash payment of Rs.18.00 lakhs. The reassessment was completed by disallowing the sum of Rs.18,00,000/- under section 40A(3) and making an addition of Rs.22,86,232/- on account of the difference in the value of closing stock.The assessee filed objections against the reopening, but the Assessing Officer confirmed the reopening, stating that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, observing that the notice under section 148 was valid as it was issued before the completion of four years from the end of the assessment year. The CIT(A) rejected the claim that the addition had been made on some unconnected issue, stating that the addition was made on the issue on which the assessment was reopened.2. Validity of Reassessment without Fresh or Tangible Material:The learned counsel for the assessee argued that there was no tangible material for reopening the assessment and that fresh and intangible material is required for reopening because the original assessment was completed under section 143(3). The counsel referred to the original assessment order, where the Assessing Officer had already considered the issue in detail. The counsel cited the case of TANMAC India vs. DCIT, where the Hon'ble Madras High Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India, held that reassessment can only be done on fresh and tangible material. The Tribunal, in the case of M/s. Sabari Foundations Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, quashed the reassessment on identical facts, stating that the Department cannot avail of the extended time limit in the absence of any new or tangible material.The learned Senior DR argued that the reopening was based on an audit objection, which constituted new information. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had simply revisited the assessment records and used the same information filed during the original assessment proceedings as the basis for reopening. The Tribunal found that the issue of lease rights release of Rs.18.00 lakhs was already considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that reopening on the same set of facts without any new or tangible material is bad in law and quashed the reassessment.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the reassessment on the grounds that there was no fresh or tangible material for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal did not address the other facets of reopening or the merits of the case, as the reassessment was quashed on the primary issue of lack of new or tangible material. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28th February 2023.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found