{"id":27013,"date":"2022-05-20T07:12:12","date_gmt":"2022-05-20T01:42:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/patel-engineering-ltd-v-dy-cit-2022285-taxman-655-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2022-10-02T13:44:40","modified_gmt":"2022-10-02T08:14:40","slug":"patel-engineering-ltd-v-dy-cit-2022285-taxman-655-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/patel-engineering-ltd-v-dy-cit-2022285-taxman-655-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Patel Engineering Ltd. v . Dy. CIT (2022)446 ITR 728 \/ 285 Taxman 655  \/ 210 DTR 185    (Bom) (HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Re assessment notice \u00a0was issued on 31 st March 2019\u00a0 to reopen assessment . Ba sis, for reopening was that certain companies were accepting contracts and were sub-contracting those contracts to other entities and revenue came to know about this based on a survey under section 133A of one SEPCL .Assessing Officer had recorded reasons that a contract was received by assessee from one SECPL during relevant assessment year . On writ the Court held that during assessment proceedings, on being asked about details of sub-contract given, assessee had given entire details required by Assessing Officer therefore, it could not be said that there was non-disclosure on part of assessee .\u00a0 Re assessment notice is held to be bad in law . Referred, \u00a0\u00a0First Source Solutions Ltd v. ACIT ( 2021) 438 ITR 139 ( Bom)( HC)\u00a0 \u00a0( AY. 2012 -13 )<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S.147: Reassessment \u2013 After the expiry of four years \u2013 Sub contract and sub -contract \u2013 During assessment proceedings all details are furnished \u2013 survey &#8211; Reasons cannot be improved or supplemented  Re assessment notice is not valid &#8211;  Re assessment notice is not valid .[ S. 133A, 148 , 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-27013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-71H","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27013","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=27013"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27013\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33169,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27013\/revisions\/33169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}