Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Nestle India Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

2016 (4) TMI 402 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Reopening of assessment - Held that:- All that the reasons refers to is the material already on record before the AO at the time that the original assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. There is not a whisper that there has been a failure by the Assessee to fully and truly disclose the material facts. Consequently, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 18th March 2002, recording the reasons for the reopening of the assessment for AY 1994-95, is not in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Range-3, seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Years ( AYs ) 1993-94 and 1994-95. 2. For both the aforementioned AYs the regular assessments under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27th March, 1996 and 28th February, 1997 respectively. For both the AYs, deductions were claimed under Section 80HHC of the Act and the returns were accompanied, inter alia, by the reports of the Chartered Accountant under Section 80HHC(4) in form 10CCAC, as well as the audit report under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were in the standard form which simply stated that AO had reason to believe that in the respective AYs income had escaped assessment. In response to the notices, the Petitioner by letters dated 18th April, 2001 re-filed copies of the original returns for the respective AYs. 5. It must be noted straightway that as far as AY 1993-94 is concerned, the notice dated 29th March 2001 is beyond the period of six years from the end of the financial year, i.e., 31st March, 1994. Therefore, as far as the n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

directed that the assessment proceedings shall continue but the final order shall not be passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) till further orders. However, it appears that unknown to the Petitioner, and therefore this Court, an assessment order was, in fact, passed by the AO on 18th March, 2002. This fact is seriously contested by the Petitioner. Subsequently, an order was passed by the Court on 23rd April, 2004 in light of the decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2003 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version