TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case it is most respectfully submitted that the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 has erred in Law and on Facts in holding that the order passed u/s 143(3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 15/11/2016 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment, by passing the Order U/s 263 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28/03/2019. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case it is most respectfully submitted that the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 has erred in Law and on Facts by holding that non compete fees paid to all the share hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ete clause, and therefore income/consideration for transfer of shares should have been offered as business income under section 28(va) of the Act. Secondly, the long-term capital loss shown by the assessee amounting to Rs. 14.08 lakhs has been wrongly claimed, since the assessee's share in property transferred was only 50%, whereas loss has been claimed by the assessee @100%. Accordingly, the Principal CIT set aside the assessment order holding the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Principal CIT. Before us, at the outset, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by Principal CIT u/s 263 of the Act is void ab ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself. Without prejudice, on merits of the case, the counsel for the assessee also submitted that the view taken by the assessing officer is a legally tenable view and therefore, even on merits, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, looking into the facts of the instant case. 5. In response, the Ld. DR relied upon the observations made by the principal CIT in the 263 order. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Before going into the merits of the order passed under section 263 of the Act, we shall first deal with the assessee's challenge to jurisdiction of the order passed under section 263 of the Act. It is a well-settled principle of law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsuant to summons issued in name of assessee's father under section 131(1A), assessee brought to notice of Revenue Authorities that his father had already died. Despite knowing said fact, Assessing Officer issued notice in name of assessee's father under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment. The assessee thus filed petition before High Court contending that impugned notice was without any jurisdiction, which was issued against a dead person. The High Court held that no valid notice could be issued against a dead person and, thus impugned notice was required to be quashed and set aside. In light of the above facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that SLP filed by the Revenue against order of High Court was to be dismissed. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Inox Wind Energy Ltd.[2023] 148 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that where amalgamated company brought facts of amalgamation to notice of Assessing Officer, show cause notice cum draft assessment order issued in name of nonexisting company would be void and same could not be said to be a procedural irregularity which could be cured under section 292B. 6.7 In the case of Krishnaawtar Kabra v. ITO [2022] 140 taxmann.com 423 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that reopening notice under section 148 issued upon deceased assessee was void ab initio and therefore, consequential proceedings and orders passed thereon were without any jurisdiction and were to be quashed and set aside. 6.8 In the ....