Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 June, 2012 cites

Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 February, 1992

3 Mr. S. N. Inamdar, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that i) the present proceeding for reopening an assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the said Act is without jurisdiction as the same is merely based on a change of opinion as the facts/material recorded for reopening of the assessment was already available on record at the time the assessment order dated 28.11.2008 under Section 143(3) of the said Act was passed by the Respondent no.1 and on examination of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:27 ::: SNC 8 WP 10437-11(final).doc material and application of law to the same the benefit was extended to the petitioner. Consequently, the present proceeding is nothing more than a different view on law applicable on facts already disclosed; ii) there is no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment as the proceedings to reopen the assessment appear to have commenced in view of a different view of the auditors; iii) there is no tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the Respondent No. 1 to have a reasonable belief that there has been an escapement of income from assessment; and iv) on merits, the issue stands covered by the circular No. 359 dated 10.05.1983 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the context of Section 54E of the said Act on provisions identical to Section 54EC where the Central Board of Direct Taxes has clarified that if earnest money or advance received as a part of the sale consideration is invested in specified assets before the date of the transfer of the assets, then the net amount so invested would qualify for exemption notwithstanding the fact that Section 54E specifically provides that the investment must be made within a period of 6 months after the date of such transfer. This view according to him has been taken by the Tribunal in the matter of Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO reported in 41 ITD308. Consequently, in view of the settled position in law, the reassessment proceeding are completely without jurisdiction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Asian Paints Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 29 January, 2007

10 Further the reasons recorded by Respondent No.1 for reopening the assessment do not state that the deduction under Section 54E was not considered in the assessment proceedings. In fact from the reasons, it appears that all facts were available on record and according to the respondents was only erroneously ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:27 ::: SNC 16 WP 10437-11(final).doc granted. This is a clear case of review of an order. The application of law or interpretation of a statue leading to a particular conclusion cannot lead to a conclusion that tax has escaped assessment for this would then certainly amount to review of an order which is not permitted unless so specified in a statue. The order dated 14.11.2011 disposing of the Petitioner's objection to initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act also proceeds on the view that there has been non application of mind during the original proceedings for assessment. This is unsustainable and as held this court in Asian Paints Ltd. v. Dy. C.I.T. 308 ITR 195 a fresh application of mind by the Assessing officer on the same set of facts amounts to a change of opinion and does not warrant reopening.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 25 February, 2004

90.84 lacs had been invested in terms of Section 54EC prior to the completion of sale. The basis of his aforesaid submission is that the same is not discussed in the order dated 28.11.2008. This ground urged by Mr. Gupta during the hearing is a new ground which does not find mention in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. As held by this Court in the matter of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR page 332, it is not open to improve upon the reasons recorded at the time of reopening the assessment by filing an affidavit and/or making oral submissions at the hearing of the Petition. The Court very categorically held that the reasons recorded must clearly establish some facts or material which lead to escapement of income. In any view of the matter the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:27 ::: SNC 15 WP 10437-11(final).doc aforesaid submission is not sustainable for the reason that if a query is raised during assessment proceedings and the assessee meets the query and/or supplies the information called for, it must be presumed that the officer was satisfied before allowing the claim and there is no need to discuss the matter in his assessment order.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 271 - V C Daga - Full Document
1