TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalid Initiation of Income Tax Proceedings for 1990-91; Lack of Jurisdiction; Appeal Allowed</h1> <h3>AMPHAR LABORATORIES (P.) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX</h3> AMPHAR LABORATORIES (P.) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - [2007] 18 SOT 13 (ASR.) (URO) Issues:Validity of reopening assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, Addition on merits, Value of the buildingValidity of Reopening Assessment:The appeal challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91. The Assessing Officer believed that the assessee had claimed excessive depreciation and lacked evidence regarding fixed asset purchases. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, citing differences in language of section 147 and rejected the applicability of previous case laws. However, the CIT(A) directed not to reduce Central subsidy from the WDV for depreciation based on a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's judgment rendered the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening invalid, as the earlier case law was no longer applicable. The Tribunal referenced a Full Bench decision and other High Court cases to support its conclusion that the reasons for reopening were unjustified, leading to quashing of the proceedings under section 147/148.Addition on Merits:The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case due to the invalidity of the reopening assessment. It emphasized that the Assessing Officer had no valid basis for assuming jurisdiction under section 147/148, as fishing enquiries were made without proper grounds, and issues that were previously addressed were revisited without new material. The Tribunal highlighted that the law does not mandate evidence of fixed asset purchases when filing returns for claiming depreciation, and the Assessing Officer's actions were deemed unauthorized. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings.Value of the Building:Regarding the value of the building, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The CIT(A) based its decision on a Supreme Court ruling, instructing not to deduct the Central subsidy from the WDV for depreciation purposes. This aspect was not further discussed due to the primary focus on the validity of the reopening assessment and subsequent jurisdictional issues.
TaxTMI 