Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Bombay High Court

Marico Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 29 July, 2019

Author: S.J. Kathawalla

Bench: Akil Kureshi, S.J. Kathawalla

     Nitin                                    1 / 2              5-WP-1917-2019-A.doc

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 1917 OF 2019
Marico Limited                                                   ...        Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax 12(3)(2) and Ors.                             ...       Respondents


Mr.Mandar Vaidya for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.V.Walve for the Respondents.


                                       CORAM :      AKIL KURESHI &
                                                    S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.
                                       DATE     :   29TH JULY, 2019
P.C.:

1. The Petitioner has challenged a notice of reopening of assessment issued within a period of four years period from the end of the relevant assessment year. Drawing our attention to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice, the Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that sole ground on which such notice is based, was scrutinized during the original scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer under his notice dated 25th September, 2017 raised several queries, including with respect to the reduction of the Assessee's book profits for computation under section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by an amount of Rs.47.04 Crores (rounded off ) being depreciation intangibles and questioned the Assessee why the same should not be added back. The Assessee had filed a detailed reply resisting such addition. The ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2019 22:44:44 ::: Nitin 2 / 2 5-WP-1917-2019-A.doc Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the final order of the assessment, the Assessing Officer did not add this amount back to the Assessee's book profits though without assigning any reasons. He therefore submitted that the notice of reopening of assessment is based on change of opinion.

2. Learned Counsel for the department prayed for time for filing reply. Stand over to 03 weeks. By way of ad-interim relief, impugned notice dated 27th March, 2019 is stayed.

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )                                  ( AKIL KURESHI, J.)




      ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019                     ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2019 22:44:44 :::