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>Court finds reopening of assessment for AY 1995-96 unwarranted under IT Act</h1> <h3>ITC Classic Finance Co., (now merged with ICICI Ltd.,) Versus V. Nagaprasad & Another</h3> ITC Classic Finance Co., (now merged with ICICI Ltd.,) Versus V. Nagaprasad & Another - TMI Issues:Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening Assessment Year 1995-96.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a petition challenging a notice dated 21st July, 2000, issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to reopen the Assessment for the year 1995-96. The petitioner had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1.98 Crores under Section 80M of the Act in its return of income, which was allowed during the Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the petitioner's income at Rs. 50.27 Crores after granting the deduction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further reduced the total income to Rs. 4.06 Crores by allowing the same deduction. Despite this, the impugned notice was issued to reopen the assessment.2. The reasons cited for the notice alleged excess deduction claimed under Section 80M and failure to reduce expenditure incurred in earning dividend income. However, the petitioner had made a full and true disclosure of material facts during the regular Assessment Proceedings, and the claim for deduction was examined by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) before granting it. The petitioner had justified its claim for deduction in a letter to the Assessing Officer, indicating a clear case of change of opinion rather than a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.3. The High Court found that the Assessing Officer had already applied his mind to the claim for deduction under Section 80M during the original assessment process. The petitioner had disclosed the claim in its return of income, and the Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction after due consideration. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the notice issued under Section 148 was unwarranted. As a result, the petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to allow the petition challenging the notice for reopening the assessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
