High Court of Bombay Adjudicates Income Tax Appeal Filed by Revenue. Appeal Concerns Assessment Year 2007-08 and Arises from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Order.
1 Apr 2025...
Search Results for "reopening assessment"
438 result(s) found
Found 438 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Income Tax Case — Reassessment Notice Invalid Beyond Four Years Without Allegation of Non-Disclosure. Arbitration Award Receipt Held as Capital Receipt, Not Income Under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8 Nov 2023The appellant, Ramona Pinto, an individual, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 2nd April 2018 pass...
- 27
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice and Order Against Co-operative Credit Society for Lack of Reasonable Belief of Income Escapement. Reopening under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 held invalid as notice was based on borrowed satisfaction and non-application of mind.
20 Feb 2023The petitioner, Mumbai Postal Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., a co-operative credit society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative ...
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 — Reopening Based on Mere Change of Opinion. Notice issued within four years of assessment year held invalid as reasons recorded were already considered during original assessment under Section 143(3).
19 Jan 2022The petitioner, Parinee Realty Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30 March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Ac...
- 45
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 147 of Income Tax Act for Lack of Reasons — Reopening Based on Mere Change of Opinion Invalid. Failure to Communicate Reasons for Reopening Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Renders Notice Invalid.
13 Jun 2017The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by M/s. Velingkar Brothers, a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932, challengi...
- 10
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for Lack of Fresh Material. Assessment Reopened Beyond Four Years Without Allegation of Failure to Disclose Material Facts Held Invalid.
4 Mar 2014The petitioner, Talati & Panthaky Associated Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice date...
- 20
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice in Income Tax Case Due to Change of Opinion. Reopening of Assessment Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Based on Mere Change of Opinion Without New Material is Invalid.
9 Jul 2012The petitioner, M/s. Rabo India Finance Limited, a non-banking financial company, challenged a notice dated 28.3.2011 issued under Section 148 of the ...
- 100
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for Lack of Fresh Material. Reimbursement of Expenses Disclosed in Return and Application Under Section 195(2) Sought, No Failure to Disclose Material Facts.
24 Jan 2012The petitioner, Monitor India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of a Dutch company, challenged a notice dated 22 March 2011 issued under Section 148 of the Inco...
- 168
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Revisional Notice Under Section 263 of Income Tax Act for Lack of Jurisdiction — Limitation Period Expired for Original Assessment Order. Reassessment Order Does Not Extend Limitation for Revising Original Assessment Under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
23 Apr 2010The petitioner, Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., challenged a notice dated 30 April 2009 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik under Section 263 of ...
- 48
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Lack of Reason to Believe — Amount Received on Retirement from Partnership Firm Held to be Capital Receipt Not Chargeable to Tax.
22 Feb 2010The petitioners, Prashant S. Joshi and Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale, were partners in a real estate development partnership firm. They retired from the p...
- 34
