GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 1108 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (1) TMI 1108 - DELHI HIGH COURT - [2016] 382 ITR 172 - Reopening of assessment - Held that:- As far as AY 2005-06 is concerned, it is sought to be urged is that while framing the original assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) had inadvertently failed to notice that accrued income of the Assessee from the disposal of stocks in the bonded warehouse had escaped assessment. As noticed by the ITAT, the original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act and a specific query was raise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Y 2005-06 was based on a change of opinion and, therefore, impermissible in law. - As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee, and as noted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the order dated 15th October, 2012 for the AY 2004-05, in the original assessment order dated 29th December 2006 under Section 143 (3), the AO had "elaborately discussed Section 14A of the Income tax Act and disallowed a sum of ₹ 1,59,03,771. A questionnaire was also issued by the AO vide q .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

28th December 2007 gave relief of Rs.l,54,03,771. - In the circumstances, the conclusion reached by the CIT (A) that the AO was by seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2004-05, reviewing his earlier order, cannot be faulted. - ITA No. 2, 3 of 2016 - Dated:- 8-1-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel, Mr Shikhar Garg and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Mayank K .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

15 & 216/Del/2013 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2005-06 and 2004-05 respectively. 6. This is the second round litigation involving the same Assessee. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was right in holding that reopening of assessment in the case of the aforementioned AYs was invalid? 7. Incidentally, for AY 2002-03, this Court in its decision CIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 58 taxmann.com 225 (Delhi) declined to frame a similar question that wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sposal of stocks in the bonded warehouse had escaped assessment. As noticed by the ITAT, the original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act and a specific query was raised by the AO to the effect: "why income from bonded warehouse be not accounted for on accrual basis?" and had been clarified by the Assessee in writing. In objecting to the re-opening of the assessment the Assessee pointed out: "As a matter of fact, the assessing officer had called (for) certain cla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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