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>Appeal allowed, reassessment quashed under sec 147. ULC charges disallowance overturned. Notice validity questioned.</h1> <h3>Sri P. Pratap Reddy, Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax</h3> Sri P. Pratap Reddy, Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax - TMI Issues:1. Reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2007-08.2. Disallowance of ULC charges and deduction u/s 54F.3. Validity of notice u/s 148 and denial of exemption u/s 54F.Analysis:Issue 1: Reopening of assessment u/s 148The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 148, claiming it was based on a change of opinion without fresh material. The CIT(A) found no discussion on capital gains in the original assessment order and upheld the reopening, citing lack of clarity on crucial issues raised by the AO. The assessee relied on the case of GMR Holdings Pvt Ltd. v. DClT but the CIT(A) dismissed the ground. The ITAT considered the judgments in S. Ranjit Reddy Vs. DCIT and CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., emphasizing the need for tangible material for reopening. Ultimately, the ITAT quashed the reassessment, stating that the AO lacked sufficient grounds for reopening.Issue 2: Disallowance of ULC charges and deduction u/s 54FThe AO disallowed ULC charges and deduction u/s 54F in the reassessment. The CIT(A) upheld these disallowances, stating the ULC charges were not part of the cost of acquisition. The AO argued that income had escaped assessment, leading to the disallowance. The ITAT, however, found no tangible fresh material to justify the disallowances and relied on legal precedents to emphasize the importance of a valid reason to believe for reassessment. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue.Issue 3: Validity of notice u/s 148 and denial of exemption u/s 54FThe notice u/s 148 was issued based on alleged escapement of income from the sale of land. The AO contended that the assessee did not offer the entire sale consideration as LTCG. The ITAT, following the principles laid down in various judgments, including Kelvinator India Ltd. and Usha International, held that the reassessment lacked a valid reason to believe and quashed it. As a result, the denial of exemption u/s 54F was also set aside. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal as infructuous due to quashing the reassessment.In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, quashed the reassessment, and dismissed the revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of tangible material and a valid reason to believe for reopening assessments under section 147 of the IT Act.
TaxTMI 