#reassessment

ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment beyond three years under Section 148 mandates PCCIT or CCIT sanction under Section 151; PCIT approval is jurisdictionally invalid. The tribunal quashed a notice where only PCIT approval was obtained, reinforcing the strict hierarchy for time-barred proceedings and protecting taxpayers from procedurally flawed orders.

The Bombay HC quashed reassessment for AY 2020-21, ruling a Section 148A(1) notice invalid where mandatory information was furnished post-limitation. On merits, the Court held Section 56(2)(x) inapplicable to proportionate rights allotments with unchanged shareholding and no disproportionate benefit - a mere issue price vs. FMV differential is not taxable in such cases.

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 IT Act requires fresh tangible material, not merely a change of opinion, upholding the Tribunal’s quash of the AY 2009-10 order. It guards taxpayers against arbitrary reopenings.

The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under section 148 is valid only if the escaped income is an asset as per Explanation 2 to section 153A, noting that unsecured loans received by the assessee qualify as such assets and that liability-side entries do not defeat the extended limitation when the escaped amount exceeds ₹50 lakh.

The ITAT ruled that a reassessment order issued after a court-ordered stay is lifted falls outside the two-year limitation of Section 153(2), rendering the addition of Rs 18.16 crore invalid. This protects taxpayers from belated reassessments once a stay is removed.

ITAT Kolkata ruled the Section 148 reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was barred by Section 149(1)(b) and set aside the ₹20.04 crore share-capital addition treated as unexplained cash credit. The decision protects taxpayers from reassessment notices served outside the statutory limitation period.

ITAT Panaji quashed the 29 July 2022 Section 148 notice as time-barred under Section 149(1)(a), setting aside assessments for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. The tribunal held that reassessment cannot proceed when the three-year limitation expires and the monetary threshold is below Rs 50 lakh, applying the Ganesh Dass Khanna test. Taxpayers gain protection from stale reassessment notices.

ITAT Pune quashes reassessment notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 after harmonious construction of Section 149(1) provisos. The ruling underscores strict compliance with limitation periods in reassessment proceedings, impacting taxpayers facing similar notices.

ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment for AY 2012-13 after finding the prescribed authority’s Section 151 approval lacked independent application of mind. Ruling reaffirms that mechanical approvals violate judicial discipline and render reopening proceedings invalid under CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015).

Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court order quashing a Section 148 reassessment notice, restoring the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur’s jurisdiction to re-examine the case under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The ruling clarifies that appellate jurisdiction under the Act remains distinct from writ jurisdiction, impacting reassessment proceedings pending before ITAT.

Kolkata ITAT quashed reassessment notices under Section 148A for failing to provide the mandatory 7-day compliance period and unsigned notices, reinforcing strict procedural safeguards in tax reassessment. The ruling underscores the importance of adherence to statutory timelines for notices issued under the Income Tax Act, impacting future reassessment proceedings.

ITAT Surat quashed a reassessment notice u/s 148 issued after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16, relying on Rajeev Bansal (SC) and Deepak Steel (SC). The ruling clarifies procedural validity of reassessment notices under amended Section 147-149 post-TOLA amendments.

ITAT Cochin has ruled that a reassessment notice issued on 06.05.2022 for AY 2015-16 is time-barred because the income escaped assessment did not exceed ₹50 lakh, triggering the three-year limitation under Section 149(1). This reinforces that post-2022 notices for pre-2019 assessments cannot be revived unless the monetary threshold is crossed, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary reopening.

ITAT Mumbai rules that failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) during reassessment proceedings renders the entire assessment void ab initio. The tribunal held that issuing a demand notice alongside a draft assessment order under Section 144C without adhering to procedural safeguards constitutes a jurisdictional error, impacting all taxpayers undergoing reassessment.

ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act must be approved by the competent authority based on the timing of issuance. For notices issued after three years, only the Pr. Chief Commissioner-not the Pr. CIT-can grant approval. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, reinforcing strict procedural compliance in tax reassessment.