https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235069 The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, finding no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose material facts for assessment. Reopening the assessment beyond four years was deemed impermissible. The court also rejected claims of excess deduction under Section 10B, unutilized CENVAT credit accounting, and taxability of excise duty rebate, as these had been adequately addressed during the original assessment. The court criticized the delay in providing reasons for reopening, citing the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. I.T.O case. The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner. en-us Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235069 The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, finding no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose material facts for assessment. Reopening the assessment beyond four years was deemed impermissible. The court also rejected claims of excess deduction under Section 10B, unutilized CENVAT credit accounting, and taxability of excise duty rebate, as these had been adequately addressed during the original assessment. The court criticized the delay in providing reasons for reopening, citing the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. I.T.O case. The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235069