https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462142 The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reopening of assessment under section 147. The assessee had been accused of inflating fixed asset purchases in preceding years, leading to excessive depreciation claims. However, the Tribunal found no allegation that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts in its returns, as required under section 147's first proviso. The issue of alleged inflated purchases had already been decided in the assessee's favor by the Tribunal for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, which was upheld by the jurisdictional HC. Since these developments occurred before the AO initiated reopening proceedings, and following the principle established in Hindustan Liver Ltd. case that reopening reasons must be read on standalone basis, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 May 2025 19:09:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462142 The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reopening of assessment under section 147. The assessee had been accused of inflating fixed asset purchases in preceding years, leading to excessive depreciation claims. However, the Tribunal found no allegation that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts in its returns, as required under section 147's first proviso. The issue of alleged inflated purchases had already been decided in the assessee's favor by the Tribunal for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, which was upheld by the jurisdictional HC. Since these developments occurred before the AO initiated reopening proceedings, and following the principle established in Hindustan Liver Ltd. case that reopening reasons must be read on standalone basis, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462142