Section 142

Section 142 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 142, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Marshall Sons & Co (India) Ltd v ITO Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our amalgamation says it takes effect from an earlier appointed date, but the court sanctioned it two years later. Which date does the Department have to work from?
  The date in the scheme. The Supreme Court held that every scheme must specify a date from which the amalgamation or transfer takes effect, that the court sanctioning it may fix a different date and if it does that date governs, but that where the court merely sanctions the scheme as presented, the transfer date in the scheme is the date of amalgamation. It cannot be otherwise. Proceedings before the court necessarily take time, the transferor may go on trading meanwhile, and that trading is deemed to be for and on behalf of the transferee. Notices calling on the transferor to file returns for later years were therefore unwarranted.
• ACIT v Hotel Blue Moon Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Is a notice under s.143(2) a jurisdictional precondition, or merely a procedural step the Assessing Officer can skip?
  The Revenue argued that in a block assessment under Chapter XIV-B the words 'so far as may be' in s.158BC(b) made the s.143(2) notice optional. The Supreme Court rejected this and held that where the Assessing Officer repudiates the return and proceeds to enquire, the s.143(2) notice must be issued within the prescribed time. Omission to issue it is not a curable procedural irregularity.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.