Gujarat High Court
Intercontinental (India) vs Deputy Commissioner Of on 18 March, 2013
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
INTERCONTINENTAL (INDIA)....Petitioner(s)V/SDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Respondent(s) C/SCA/2854/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2854 of 2013 ================================================================ INTERCONTINENTAL (INDIA)....Petitioner(s) Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADV WITH MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 18/03/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Petitioner has challenged the notice for reopening of assessment which was previously framed after scrutiny. Such notice has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Even the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment started with the narration On verification of the case record it is noticed that ...... . Counsel further submitted that when the commission paid to the foreign agent is not taxable in India, question of deduction of tax at source would not arise. In this respect, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd v. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC).
Notice returnable on 8th April 2013. Respondents may continue with the assessment, final order pursuant to the impugned notice shall not be passed without the leave of the Court.
Direct service is permitted.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) (vjn) Page 2 of 2