Allowing the petition the Court held that during assessment proceedings assessee-company in support of increase in its authorized share capital had produced evidences in form of details of share allotment, names and addresses of parties from whom share premium was received etc. and Assessing Officer after considering same had finalized assessment and passed assessment order, subsequent reopening of assessment on same issue was purely on change of opinion. Reassessment notice was quashed. Referred Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 229 Taxman 545/ 275 CTR 49 (Bom)(HC). (AY. 2013-14
Kalpataru Land Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 136 taxmann.com 434 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : Affirmed in ACIT v. Kalpataru Land Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 364 // 218 DTR 527 / 329 CTR 224/ ( 2023) 290 Taxman 123/ 218 DTR 527 / 329 CTR 224/ ( 2023) 290 Taxman 123(SC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Share capital-Share premium-Income from other sources-Produced evidence in support of increase of authorised share capital, share allotment and names and address of parties from whom share premium received-Change of opinion-Reassessment was quashed. [S. 56 (2)(viib), 148, Art. 226]