TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7th March, 2006. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and an order dated 31st December, 2007 under section 143(3) of the Act was passed assessing the income at Rs. 1160.67 Crores. A rectification order was passed under section 154 of the Act on 6th May, 2009 assessing the income at Rs. 2541.34 Crores under section 115JB of the Act, as tax liability was higher. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened and an order under section 143(3) read with 147 was passed on 18th December, 2009. 2. Thereafter, Petitioner received a notice dated 31st March, 2010 under section 148 of the said Act from Respondent No. 1 alleging that he had reason to believe that Petitioner's income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2005-2006 has escaped assessment wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not profits arising out of sale of investment. Therefore, according to Respdt. No. 1 he had reason to believe that a sum of Rs. 22,71,25,79,374/- has escaped assessment. Break up for this figure of Rs. 22,71,25,79,374/- can be found in reasons itself and it is necessary for us to re-produce the same. The same is as under: Head of Income Name of scrip Cost Sale consideration Profit/Loss Short term capital gains (Annexure D) Tata Mutual Fund 22081463148 22095246862 13783714 Tata Mutual Fund 1600014357 1600000000 -14357 Long terms capital gains (Annexure E) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 22419806 12288548600 12266128794 Slump sale of TCS Division 3375612825 Tata Telecom 1920000 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 151 of the Act had considered the reasons properly, either he would have directed Respondent No. 1 to re-work on the reasons or would not have granted the approval. Moreover, we may keep in mind this is a case where the scrutiny assessment was completed and order under section 143(3) of the Act has been passed followed by a rectification order under section 154 of the Act. Therefore Petitioner's case has been considered at two stages, (i) When the assessment order was passed after scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act and (ii) When an order under section 154 of the Act was passed. 8. The reasons for proposed re-opening clearly indicates that Respondent No. 1 wants to re-open only on the basis of change of opinion which, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 133 ITR 4702 where it was observed that the expression "business" is a word of a occupation. In taxing statute, it is used in the sense of a occupation or profession which occupies the time, of making profit. To regard an activity as business there must be a course dealings either actually continued or contemplating to be continued with the profit motive, and not for support or pleasure. Whether a person carried on business in a particular commodity must depend upon the volume, frequency, continuity and transaction of purchase and sale in class of goods and the transaction must ordinarily be entered into with a profit motive. Now when the ratio of the aforesaid decisions is to be applied to the facts of the present cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain precondition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an inbuilt test to check abuse of power by the AO. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, AO has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to s. 147 of the act, as quoted here....