| COURT: |
Delhi High Court |
| CORAM: |
S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J |
| SECTION(S): |
147, 148 |
| GENRE: |
Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: |
Reassessment |
| COUNSEL: |
Ananya Kapoor, Salil Kapoor, Sanat Kapoor |
| DATE: |
March 3, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
March 28, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
- |
| FILE: |
Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: |
|
|
Section 147, reopening, reopening on factually erroneous premise, not permissible, change of opinion |
Since the action of the Revenue was based on a factually erroneous premise, the Court is of the view that the reopening of the assessments for the said AYs is not sustainable in law. The Court is also satisfied that the requirement of the law, as explained by the Court in Commissioner of Income Tax. v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), and reiterated in the later decisions, has not been fulfilled in the present case.
Related Posts:
- Shiv Bhagwan Gupta vs. ACIT (ITAT Patna) The Assessing Officer has levied penalty @ 10% of the alleged undisclosed income, however, it is a matter of record in this case that the assessee has not made any surrender of any undisclosed income during the search action. The assessing officer has not initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- RDS Project Limited vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) It is true that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had required the assessee to disclose information pertaining to the share applicants, the amounts and their source, the mode in which payment was made and confirmatory letters together with PAN details. But it is also trite…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
- Shiv Raj Gupta vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The revenue has no business to second guess commercial or business expediency of what parties at arms-length decide for each other. For example, stating that there was no rationale behind the payment of INR 6.6 crores and that the assessee was not a probable or perceptible threat or competitor to…
- Achal Gupta vs. ITO (ITAT Lucknow) On going through the aforesaid judgment, we find that no question of law was formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said case and there is only dismissal of appeal in limine and the Hon'ble High Court found that the issue involved is a question of fact as…
Leave a Reply