Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in animal health care products. Pfizer Animal Pharma Private Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner has been amalgamated with petitioner. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing officer asked specific question on valuation of shares and also CBDT Circular dated 1-8-2012 which stated that the Indian Medical Council has imposed prohibition on Medical Practitioners and their professional associates from taking gift, travel facilities, hospitality, cash, monetary grant etc. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dt. 13-3-2020 and order rejecting the objection was passed on 29-9-2021. On Writ allowing the petition the Court held that two points have triggered re-opening. First is valuation of shares of petitioner which was issued to its parent company Zoetis Pharmaceutical Research P. Ltd. and second is expenses in the sum of Rs.3,99,03,688/-as cost of samples under the head Advertisement and Business Promotion. The Court held that as regards the first point, i.e., valuation of shares as per discounted cash flow method and addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is nothing but change of opinion. As regards the second point regarding cost of samples, this has also been discussed during the assessment proceeding and why the circular of CBDT dated 1st August, 2012 relied upon by the JAO is not applicable. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for re-assessment. Accordingly the reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. (WP. No. 21206 of 2021, dt. 11—1-22) (AY. 2013-2014)
Zoetis India v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC) (UR)
S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Amalgamation-Valuation of shares-Advertisement and Business Promotion on medical practioners-Reopening on same material with a view to take another view is held to be not valid-Notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 37(1), 56(2)(viib), 148, Art. 226]