9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubjected to challenge by the petitioner in this Court. This in view of the fact that during the regular assessment proceedings, the Return of Income Tax filed by the petitioner was accepted by virtue of Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661 has set aside the order of this Court in Zuari Estate Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , 271 ITR 269 to hold that reopening notice is valid in law and restored it to the Tribunal for disposal on merits. It is pointed out that this Court in Zuari Estate (Supra) had held that the reassessment Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is without jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (Supra) has not been disturbed by the Apex Court in Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (Supra). In fact, the Supreme Court in Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (Supra) makes a specific reference to its decision in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (Supra) to hold that where the assessment has been completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, there can be no question of change of opinion. 4. We further find that the Apex Court in Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (Supra) has not dealt with the issue whether before invoking Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (Supra) has held that the condition precedent for the issue of reopening notice namely, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, has no application where the assessment has been completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The law on this point has been expressly laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (Supra) and the same would continue to apply and be binding upon us. Thus, even in cases where no assessment order is passed and assessment is completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the sine qua non to issue a reopening notice is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sive and, therefore, income. Moreover, the Notice also does not dispute that this is a share premium but seek justification for charging the share premium over and above intrinsic value of the share premium. Primafacie, we are of the view that the basis of the impugned Notice stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Vodafone India Services Ltd. Vs. CIT 368 ITR 01, wherein it has been held that the share premium being on the capital amount cannot be subjected to tax as income. 10. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that Vodafone India Services Ltd. (Supra) will not apply and places reliance upon the decision of this Court in Major Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 359 ITR 450 and the decision of this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
