TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2014 - M. S. Sanklecha and G. S. Kulkarni,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. J. D. Mistry, Mr. Nishant Thakkar For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Ahuja ORDER P. C. This petition challenges a notice dated 31.7.2012 issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y.2008-09. 2. The reasons in support of the impugned notice dated 31.7.2012 for reopening the assessment for A.Y.2008-09 are as under : 1. The assessee M/s CGU Logistics Ltd, having PAN AACC8880B is assessed to tax in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its business operations. The only activity during the year under consideration was acquiring assets. As such all the expenditure incurred in relation to acquiring such assets including insurance, bank charges, professional fees etc are required to be capitalized to the value of asset till the date it came into existence or is put to use and the income earned from other sources is required to be taxed. The assessee in the return filed has however offered only the interest income for tax and thus the other income of ₹ 8,39,093/- has escaped assessment. Similarly. the expenses of ₹ 1,76,05,029/- claimed as revenue expenses have been wrongly allowed to the assessee instead of capitalization to the value of asset. This has resulted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner filed a further submission explaining in detail why according to the petitioners the impugned notice are without jurisdiction and particularly on account of the fact that the notice proceeds on change of opinion as issues with regard to exchange rate fluctuation gains which were the subject matter of consideration under Section 143 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer by a communication dated 4.3.2014 did not consider the further objections filed by the petitioner on the ground that he has already disposed of the objections. 4. Normally we would not have interfered with the order disposing of the objections and entertained the petition on merits. However, after hearing the petitioner and the revenue for sometime and the issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
