Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 57 (0.30 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
"11. The undisputed position in the present case is that the
regular assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the
Act and the re-opening has been issued within a period of four
years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Thus, the
rigour of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not to be
satisfied for issue of a reopening notice i.e. failure to disclose all
material facts truly and fully necessary for assessment. It is also
not disputed that in the regular assessment proceedings, queries
were raised in respect of claim under Section 80IC of the Act and
the same were responded to by the Respondent-Assessee
resulting in reduction of claim for deduction under Section 80IC of
the Act. In the above facts, it is self evident that the Assessing
Officer was conscious of the claim of deduction made by the
Respondent-Assessee under Section 80IC of the Act which led to
the enquiry. It is for the Assessing Officer to decide the extent and
nature of enquiry in respect of claim under Section 80IC of the Act.
Therefore, when the Assessing Officer has taken a conscious
decision of making enquiry under Section 80IC of the Act then it is
not open to him to turn around and claim that certain aspects of
the claim under Section 80IC of the Act were not considered by
him. It is undisputed as pointed out above, Section 80IC of the Act
was a subject matter of enquiry and this resulted in disallowance
of Rs. 11.49 Crores out of the claim for Rs. 33.67 Crores made by
the Respondent under Section 80IC of the Act. The decision of this
Court in Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra), in
our view, would have no application to the present facts as in that
case admittedly during the regular assessment proceedings, the
Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issue sought to
be raised in the re-opening proceedings. In the aforesaid decision,
it was held that the Assessing Officer has ignored relevant
material in arriving at an assessment contrary to law.
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 119 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Tosha International Ltd. on 31 July, 2007
5.21 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha
International Ltd. (supra), in their decision dated 24/09/2012
by a majority view, held that when on a particular issue the
Assessing Officer has raised a query and the assessee has
responded in regular assessment proceeding, then in such
circumstances even if no addition has made in the assessment
order, it shall be treated as a opinion has been framed by the
Assessing Officer and subsequently, reopening on the same issue
would amount to 'change of opinion'. The Hon'ble High Court in
para 39 of the decision has further held that where the Assessing
Officer has not raised any written query on the particular issue in
39
ITA No.3768/Del/2017
the original assessment, then such matters require deeper
scrutiny or examination of the records to ensure whether any
opinion was framed by the Assessing Officer on that particular
issue. Thus, there is no doubt that where regular assessment is
completed under section 143 (3) of the Act the assessment cannot
be reopened within four years from the end of the relevant
assessment year merely on the basis of change of opinion without
any tangible material.
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Praful Chunilal Patel vs M.J. Makwana, Assistant Commissioner ... on 19 February, 1998
5.4 The full bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256
ITR 1 (Del)(FB) in their decision dated 19/04/2002 did not
subscribe to the finding in the case of Bawa Abhay Singh (supra)
and Praful Chunilal Patel (supra) and held that 'the AO does not
have any jurisdiction to review its own order and initiate
reassessment proceeding upon mere change of opinion based on
the material which was already available before the Assessing
Officer'. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is
reproduced as under