2015 (9) TMI 1640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Prakash K. Jotwani ORDER N.K. Billaiya,   This appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, Mumbai dated 2.8.2013 pertaining to Assessment year 2008-09. 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. The claim of the Revenue is that the Assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pening is less than 4 years and therefore the proviso is not applicable. 6. Having heard the rival submissions, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the claim of the DR that in the year under consideration, the reopening was within 4 years. However, in the light of the factual matrix of the case in hand, wherein, the reopening has been done for the fol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eted assessment have been duly considered by the AO while making the original assessment order. Therefore, it is clear that no new facts have come to the notice of the AO for reopening a completed assessment. 8. In so far as the claim of the Revenue that sales tax subsidy has no direct nexus with the business of the assessee has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA....