Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Nitish Ishvarlal Champaneria Versus Income Tax Officer

2015 (12) TMI 1512 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Reopening of assessment - assessee sold his immovable property and had earned long term capital gain claiming deduction under section 54-EC on investment in Rural Electrification Corporation - Held that:- The reasons recorded by the assessing officer do not even suggest that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The revenue has not, even if possible to do so, demonstrated any such failure on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cating any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, even the record suggests to the contrary. Reopening quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 14600 of 2015 - Dated:- 21-12-2015 - Akil Kureshi And Mohinder Pal, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Tushar P Hemani, Adv, Ms Vaibhavi K Parikh, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Sudhir M Mehta, Adv ORDER ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) 1. Petitioner has challenged a notice dat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ramed scrutiny assessment under section 143 (3) of the Act on 24.09.2010. To re-open such assessment, the assessing officer issued the impugned notice. At the request of the petitioner, he supplied in communication dated 07.04.2015 the reasons he had recorded for issuing the notice. Such reasons read as under: The reasons for re-opening the assessment is as under: The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y.2008-09on 31.3.2009 declaring income of ₹ 1,26,678/- The assessment under secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8. The assessee being an individual was required to file his return of income for A.Y.2008-09 by 31.07.2008 and the unutilized amount was required to be deposited as specified in section 54F. As the unutilized amount was not deposited before the due date of filing of return i.e. 31.07.2008 the deduction of ₹ 28,77,429/- u/s 54F could not be allowed. According to section 54F capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house subje .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ade in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount, if any, already ut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rdance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, framed in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit. On verification of the records, it is seen that the unutilized amount was not deposited before the due date of filing of return i.e. 31.7.2008 hence the deduction of ₹ 28,77,429/-u/s 54F could not be allowed. 3. The petitioner objected to the notice of re-opening. The assessing officer, however, rejected such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hs was claimed under section 54-F of the Act on purchase of residential property which was done on 29.11.2008. According to the revenue, this investment of ₹ 28.77 lakhs for purchase of residential unit did not qualify for deduction since such purchase was made after the last date for filing the return. 5. In the present petition, we are not concerned with the validity of the revenue's objection. It is on account of the fact that the notice for re-opening has been issued beyond the per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version