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>Court quashes tax notice & reassessment for lack of new material</h1> <h3>Techspan India P. Ltd. And Another Versus Income-Tax Officer.</h3> Techspan India P. Ltd. And Another Versus Income-Tax Officer. - [2006] 283 ITR 212, 203 CTR 550, 158 TAXMANN 182 Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition for quashing a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Merits of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The primary contention was whether a writ petition could be maintained to challenge the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that if the initiation of proceedings was without jurisdiction, they could challenge it via a writ petition both at the stage of issuance of the notice and after the speaking order disposing of objections. The Revenue contended that a writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal post-reassessment.The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, which affirmed that the High Courts could issue orders to prevent executive authorities from acting without jurisdiction, even if alternative remedies were available. This position was further supported by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC 1, which stated that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution remains unaffected by the existence of alternative statutory remedies, especially where the authority acted without jurisdiction.The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19, which outlined the procedure for challenging a notice under section 148, indicating that objections to the notice must be disposed of by a speaking order, which could then be challenged via a writ petition.The court agreed with the views of the Gujarat High Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 268 ITR 48 and the Allahabad High Court in Indra Prastha Chemicals P. Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 271 ITR 113, which upheld the maintainability of writ petitions in similar circumstances.2. Merits of the Reassessment Proceedings:The petitioners contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. They argued that the original assessment had already considered all relevant factors, and the subsequent notice under section 148 was issued without any new material, merely representing a change in the Assessing Officer's opinion.The court examined whether the reassessment was based on new material or a mere change of opinion. It noted that during the original assessment, a detailed inquiry was conducted, and the allocation of expenses between the software and human resources divisions was specifically addressed. The original assessment had allowed the deduction under section 10A based on the profits of the eligible undertaking.In the reasons for reopening, the Assessing Officer merely stated that the deduction under section 10A had been allowed in excess without presenting any new material. The court referenced its decision in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170, which held that reopening an assessment based on a change of opinion is not permissible. This position was reaffirmed in Transworld International Inc. v. Joint CIT [2005] 273 ITR 242.The court found that the reassessment was indeed based on a mere change of opinion, as no new material had come to light. The original assessment had already addressed the issue of allocation of expenses and the computation of deduction under section 10A. The court also noted that the amendment to sub-section (4) of section 10A, effective from April 1, 2001, clarified that the deduction should be computed based on the profits of the eligible undertaking, not the entire business. This aspect was not considered in the speaking order dated August 17, 2005.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice under section 148 dated February 10, 2005, and the speaking order dated August 17, 2005. It also quashed all proceedings initiated pursuant to the said notice, holding that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and based on a mere change of opinion.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found