{"id":48570,"date":"2024-12-01T10:10:30","date_gmt":"2024-12-01T04:40:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-haldia-petrochemicals-ltd-2024467-itr-571-sc-editorial-pcit-v-haldia-petrochemicals-ltd-2024467-itr-159-calhc\/"},"modified":"2024-12-21T18:57:40","modified_gmt":"2024-12-21T13:27:40","slug":"pcit-v-haldia-petrochemicals-ltd-2024467-itr-571-sc-editorial-pcit-v-haldia-petrochemicals-ltd-2024467-itr-159-calhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-haldia-petrochemicals-ltd-2024467-itr-571-sc-editorial-pcit-v-haldia-petrochemicals-ltd-2024467-itr-159-calhc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. (2024)467 ITR 571 \/300 Taxman 87(SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. (2024)467 ITR 159 (Cal)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the High Court held\u00a0 that the fundamental principle of law was that the reason should disclose failure on the part of the assessee to truly and validly disclose material facts necessary for the assessment. From the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under section\u00a0147\u00a0for the assessment year 2008-09, it was clear that the material already available in the books of account had been reappraised by the Assessing Officer and notice under section\u00a0148\u00a0had been issued. In the absence of any such allegations against the assessee the Tribunal was justified in reappreciating the fact to conclude that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law and in setting aside the assessment order under section\u00a0147\u00a0read with section\u00a0154\u00a0and section\u00a0143(3). SLP of Revenue is dismissed. (AY. 2008-09)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Reappreciation of facts-Order of Tribunal quashing the reassessment order is affirmed by High Court-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 143(3), 148, 154, 260A, Art. 136]<\/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-48570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cDo","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48570","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=48570"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48570\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49104,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48570\/revisions\/49104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}