{"id":26603,"date":"2022-04-21T05:59:59","date_gmt":"2022-04-21T00:29:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/sanghvi-woods-ltd-v-acit-2022-285-taxman-252-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2022-04-24T12:41:37","modified_gmt":"2022-04-24T07:11:37","slug":"sanghvi-woods-ltd-v-acit-2022-285-taxman-252-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/sanghvi-woods-ltd-v-acit-2022-285-taxman-252-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Sanghvi Woods Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 285 Taxman 252\/ 209 DTR 233\/ 324 CTR 332 (Bom) (HC )"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessment was completed under section 143(3), read with section 147 allowing partial deduction under section 80IA \u00a0of the Act . On appeal CIT ( A) allowed the claim of the assesses. There was search on the assessee and block assessment order was\u00a0 passed u\/s 158BC of the Act and disallowed the claim u\/s 80IA of the Act Thereafter, on 30-3-2004 the , Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 alleging that assessee&#8217;s income chargeable to tax for assessment year 1997-98 had escaped assessment and calling upon assessee to file a return of its income within 30 days . On writ , allowing the petition the Court held that \u00a0on date on which impugned notice dated 30-3-2004 was issued, Assessing Officer could not have any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment under section 148 because in block assessment order dated 30-1-2004, deduction claimed by assessee had been disallowed and therefore reopening of assessment on ground that deduction claimed by assessee under sections 80-I, 80-HHA and 80-IA had not been examined properly in regular assessment could not have been allowed . Reassessment notice was quashed . Followed\u00a0 CIT v. H.N. Shindore\u00a0 (1978 .) 113 ITR 679 ( Bom))( HC)\u00a0 ( AY. 1997 -98 )<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 147 : Reassessment \u2013 Block assessment \u2013 Deduction disallowed in the block assessment order &#8211;  Reassessment notice is bad in law [ S.80HHA, 80I, 80IA, 132,  143(3), 148, 158BA, 158BC , Art, 226 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-6V5","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26603","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26603"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26631,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26603\/revisions\/26631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}