Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.34 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T., Trivandrum vs M/S Anand Theatres on 12 May, 2000
48. We may also point out that to support the case of the
AO, the ld. CIT-DR has placed reliance on plethora of
decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of CIT Vs. Anand Theatre [supra], CIT Vs. Gwalior
Rayon Silk Mfg. Mills 196 ITR 149 [SC] and decision of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the case of Moradabad Toll Road Co.
Vs. ACIT [2014] 52 Taxmann.com 21 [Delhi] to establish that
golf course is not a plant and machinery and it is to be
categorised as a building and on the other hand, the ld. AR
has placed reliance on the case of decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power
Corpn. 247 ITR 268 [SC], Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd
Vs. CIT 157 ITR 86 [SC] and decision in the case of Victory
45
46
ITA No. 3549 & 4847/Del/2009
CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010
Aqua Farm Ltd 61 Taxmann.com 166 [SC] and plethora of
decision to support the case of the assessee that golf course
is a plant and machinery and it is not a building.
Interestingly, no cited decision relied by both the parties are
related to golf course. Therefore, facts regarding this issue
have to be dealt in respect to golf course of 300 acres land
and how it became plant and machinery attracting 25%
depreciation. The AO has to examine these details to
ascertain the issue between the parties as stated above. We
also note that the assessee in its written submissions before
the authorities below as well as before the Tribunal has
submitted the details of construction on the 300 acres of
land converting it into a golf course, but these details have
not been submitted before the AO and the AO could not get
an opportunity to verify and examine the same. Therefore,
in our considered opinion, this issue requires detailed
verification and examination at the end of the AO after
affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and
without being prejudiced from the earlier assessment and
first appellate order. Needless to say that the AO would
examine all material facts on this issue and
46
47
ITA No. 3549 & 4847/Del/2009
CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010
after considering the mandate of the relevant provisions o of
the Act as well as the ratio of decisions relied upon by both
the parties shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with
law.
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
23. Replying to the above, the ld. DR also placed reliance on
plethora of decisions including decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd 237 ITR 13 [SC] & decision in the
case of Ess Kay Engg. Com. (P) Ltd 247 ITR818 [sc] and Hon'ble High
Court of Madras in the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd 241 ITR 248
21
22
ITA No. 3549 & 4847/Del/2009
CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010
[Madras] and vehemently contended that after considering the ratio of
its own decision in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society
[supra], it was held that the audit report has to be construed as if
relevant provision of law had been brought to ITO's notice, then the
said report constituted information within the meaning of section
147(b) of the Act. She also contended that when audit party had
merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by the AO, and
this was not a case of information on a question of law, then reopening
of case u/s 147(b) of the Act on the basis of factual information given
by the internal audit party was valid in law.
M/S Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Iv & ... on 3 November, 2008
The ld. AR further placing
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co.[supra] submitted that notice after
four years u/s 148 of the Act and there is no indication in the reasons
recorded about failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and
truly all material facts for its assessment, then notice in such a
situation is not a valid notice. The ld. AR of the assessee again took us
through para 28 of the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court and
contended that since there was no failure to make the return, the
20
21
ITA No. 3549 & 4847/Del/2009
CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010
escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure and when
the assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary
for assessment then no action u/s 148 of the Act could have been
taken after four years period as per provisions of the Act.
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
16. The ld. AR also pointed out that it was a mere change of opinion
on the similar material and reopening of assessment cannot be held as
valid when without any tangible material, and without application of
mind, the AO held that there is escapement of income. For this
proposition, the ld. AR placed reliance on the ratio of the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd
320 ITR 561 [SC]. The ld. AR reiterating its submission again pointed
out that as per first proviso to section 147 of the Act, reopening of
assessment is not permissible after expiry of four years from the end of
relevant A.Y unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped
assessment by the reason of failure to disclose fully and truly all
material facts necessary for assessment. The ld. AR lastly alleged that
the AO initiated reassessment proceedings only on the report of audit
party of the department and without applying his mind he proceeded
to initiate reassessment proceedings which is not a legal and fair
approach.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Tosha International Ltd. on 31 July, 2007
The ld. AR
placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the
case of CIT Vs. Usha International, 348 ITR 485 [Del] contended that
where an AO incorrectly or erroneously applies law or comes to a
wrong conclusion, then initiation of reassessment proceedings will be
invalid on the ground of change of opinion.
Cit vs Purolator India Ltd on 28 November, 2011
22. The ld. AR further drew our attention towards the decision of
Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Purolator India Ltd 343 ITR
155 para 10 to support this contention that there is no indication that
the assessee has failed or omitted to disclose the material and primary
facts, then reassessment proceedings beyond four years are not
permissible.
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 1 October, 1958
24. The ld. CIT-DR placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh Vs. CIT 35
ITR 1 [SC] contended that the assessee has accepted assessment order
for A.Y 2003-04 dated 28.2.2006 and contended that subsequent orders
of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court, Tribunal and Revenue
authorities in assessee's own case was information within the meaning
of section 34(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1922 which is a corresponding
section of section 147 of the Act and in the present case notice u/s 148
of the Act dated 30.10.2006 was issued after said assessment order
passed in assessee's own case for AY 2003-04 which validly empower
the AO for reopening of assessment beyond four years.