Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 819 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - deduction of a loss claimed on account of diminution of value of the derivatives - ascertained liability - Held that:- We are far more concerned about the question whether there was full and true disclosure in respect of such a claim. The answer would be available from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer itself. These reasons nowhere demonstrate that the assessee had failed to disclose true and full facts. In fact, to the contrary, the reasons would establish that the Assessing Officer was referring to the material already on record to assert that the claim of expenditure of ₹ 1.88 crores was not in tune with the MAT provisions contained under section 115JB of the Act and in particular, explanation 1(c) thereto. Clearly therefore, the Assessing Officer did not have any additional or new material which did not form part of the original assessment proceedings to question the assessee's claim of deduction in this respect. Notice of reopening based on such ground which was issued beyond a period of four years, would therefore not be valid.- Decided in favour of assessee. Claim of deduction under section u/s. 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act in respect to sale of steam to its sister concern - Held that:- From the reply of the petitioner, it can be seen that the issue under discussion was precisely whether the petitioner was justified in claiming deduction on sale of steam. In this respect, the petitioner relied on a decision of Delhi bench of the Tribunal and contended that the word 'power' has to be given a meaning which in common parlance means energy and that therefore, steam produced by the petitioner would also be termed as power and therefore, qualify for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. Undisputedly, the Assessing Officer did not disturb this claim in the final order of assessment. It may be that while doing so, she did not record separate reasons in the order of assessment. This would however be of no consequence as has been held by this Court in case of Gujarat Power Corporation Limited v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2012 (9) TMI 69 - Gujarat High Court ]. Thus egarding the second ground also, therefore, it can be seen that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts. In fact, the claim was examined not only in the context of the petitioner's larger deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act but, specifically to that portion of the claim which related to the sale of steam. Such ground cannot be reagitated in exercise of power for reassessment, that too beyond the period of four years. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|