Messages

gujarat high court in case of  hotel  oasis in s.c.a. 10657/09 has considered aspect of factually incorrect premises as incorrect basis for reopning.
reopening  is not sustainable on same issue for which revision proceedings are at appellate level .

reopening is not for making inquiries  to be done in regular assessment.

significant aspect is at para. 23. objection disposal is not an empty formality and reasons are to be given for rejection of assessee's contentions.

r.k.patel

please see 113 I T R 22(guj.) P. V. Doshi's case.

jurisdiction is confered by fulfillment of pre requisite conditions of statute.

it cannot be confered  by consent.

r.k.patel

 in case of new arbuda builders  i.t. dept. attached bank account of the assessee without even granting hearing on

the stay  petition though the  assessed income was over 16 times returned income and over two weeks had elapsed

from the date of filing stay petition.. cit(a) had also not issued notice  of hearing on the appeal filed by assessee.

on a writ,  guj. high court  directed respondents to grant hearing on stay petition in 4 weeks and ordered dept. and

assessee to refrain from withdrawing from bank account till disposal of stay application.

R. K. Patel.

RULE is issued. Final hearing awaited.

interim relief is granted.

further proceedings in persuance to notice u/s 148 are stayed.

R. K. Patel.

recently, gujarat high court in the case of Pankaj extrusions  interpreted "eligible assessee" within the scope of

s.144C and held that if there is no

variation in arms length price in the order

of TPO,  then assessing officer cannot issue Draft Asst. Order u/s 144C.

R. K. Patel.

assessee was a firm and for past years no claim was made u/s 80 IA. thereafter , 80 IA was claimed in same status.

notice u/s 154 issued for another asst. year.. revised return filed  to withdraw claim. penalty u/s 271 (1) (c)  deleted by court

since there was no evidence of any detection in notice u/s 154. dharmendra tex. s.c. considered and penalty deleted even

without  aid of reliance petro s.c. judgement. mistake of claim considered to be bonafide.

refer  50 D. T. R. 321 Guj. Backbone enterprise

K. G rukminiamma case by Karnataka High Court is reported

at 48 D. T. R. 377

four flats were held by assessee

please see 37 D. T. R. 209 (Guj.) Vodafone case.

R. K. Patel, advocate

other judgements on rule of consistency are
249 ITR 219
254    ''  606
257   ''   59
266  ''    99
206 CTR 587
292  ITR  1
304   ''    61
308  ''   161
320   '' 695
322  '' st. 10
193  '' 321
215  '' 323

regards,
R. K. patel,advocate

so far as approval is concerned, some officers are of the view that it is procedural.

however, in one writ petition challenging 147/ 148 jurisdiction i have taken violence of mandatory statutory

condition u/s 151 as one of the main grounds on the strength of 113 I T R 22 (guj.) p.v. doshi's case

since alongwith reasons no approval/santion is given to assessee. dept. senior standing counsel has

stated that approval is there, but copy/ any other proof  is not annexed in affidavit in rejoinder. i am seriously pressing

this ground since case records are not shown to the hon'ble court to indicate fact of approval.

matter is sub- judice. notice is already issued with ad- interim relief.

i shall keep you informed of the development in the case,

r.k.patel

on a conjoint reading of recent delhi itat order of balwant wadhwa in ita 4806/10 dt. 14/1/11 and haryana

acrylic  decision of delhi high court at 308 i t r 38 there is an inherent indication iin the ratio that notice u/s

148 for reopening should be accompanied with reasons, or reasons must necessarily  be issued suo

motu  by the officer  immidiately thereafter.

r.k. patel, advocate.

please share views/ comments.  thanks

please see decision of national textiles. 249 I T R 125(guj.)

more [particularly last para. pg. 133 till end at pg. 135

apart from ntpc judgement of supreme court, on facts ratio of 113 I T R  22 gujarat high court in p.v. doshi can also

be relied upon. reopening is granted jurisdiction on fulfillment of pre requisite  statutory conditions and not by

consent of anyone. anytime this legal plea is maintanable  without ony hurdle of latches if statutorily jurisdictional

pre conditions remain unfulfilled..

larger bench decision of b.t. patil  by mumbai itat  is distinguished by rajkot bench.

i have also challenged vires of amending explanation w.r.e. in s.80IA 4 as well as s.80IB 10

writs of my clients are admitted by gujarat high court. recovery is stayed by way of interim relief.

final hearing is awaited.

i have read paper copy of rajkot tribunal decision. if same is uploaded on website, i shall check and

attach in this thread.

r.k.patel

rajkot bench of ITAT has decided issue in favour of assessee  in m/s tarmet bel (jv ) kcl by order dt. 23/9/10.

r.k.patel,advocate