Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court upholds notice to reopen assessment for non-disclosure of transactions with S.R. Sales Corporation.</h1> <h3>Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle - 2 (1) (1)</h3> Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle - 2 (1) (1) - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Legality of the notice issued beyond four years for reopening the assessment.2. Alleged failure of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly.3. Validity of the reasons for reopening the assessment.4. Examination of the genuineness of purchases from S.R. Sales Corporation during original assessment.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Notice Issued Beyond Four Years:The petitioner challenged the notice dated 30.03.2016 issued by the respondent Assessing Officer to reopen the petitioner’s assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, arguing that it was issued beyond the permissible period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The court noted that the original assessment was framed after scrutiny, and the reopening was based on new material that came to the department's possession after the original assessment.2. Alleged Failure of the Assessee to Disclose All Material Facts Fully and Truly:The petitioner argued that there was no failure on their part to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment. However, the court found that the transactions with S.R. Sales Corporation were not scrutinized during the original assessment, and the new material suggested that the assessee might have concealed income. The court emphasized that the non-disclosure of dubious transactions could not be considered full and true disclosure.3. Validity of the Reasons for Reopening the Assessment:The petitioner contended that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not suggest any formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. They argued that non-response from the sellers to the inquiry notice was insufficient to form such a belief. The court, however, found that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The investigation revealed that S.R. Sales Corporation had dubious transactions, including large cash withdrawals and non-existent business premises, which justified the reopening.4. Examination of the Genuineness of Purchases from S.R. Sales Corporation During Original Assessment:The petitioner argued that the genuineness of the purchases was already examined during the original assessment, and no disallowance was made regarding the purchases now being questioned. The court noted that the purchases from S.R. Sales Corporation were not part of the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of change of opinion did not arise. The court also observed that the new material unearthed by the investigation wing indicated that the transactions were dubious, and the assessee’s disclosure in the return and books of accounts was insufficient to argue full and true disclosure.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court emphasized that at the stage of issuing the notice for reopening, the sufficiency of the material is not to be evaluated, but rather whether the Assessing Officer had information enabling a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment. The court discharged the rule and made no observations affecting the pending reassessment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found