TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment year 2015-16. The petitioner challenges a notice under 148 of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') dated 30 March 2021, an order dated 8 February 2022, disposing of the petitioner's objection to reopening the assessment and draft assessment order dated 14 March 2022. 4. The petitioner filed its return of income on 30 November 2015. A notice was issued on 10 July 2017 under Section 142 (1), and upon considering the petitioner's reply, the Assessing Officer (AO) made the original assessment order on 20 December 2017. 5. After the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the AO issued the impugned notice dated 30 March 2021 under Section 148 seeking to reopen the assessment. By letter dated 20 May 2021, the reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion u/s 10A/10AA has to be first set off against the loss suffered by an ineligible unit before computing the available deduction u/s 10A/10AA. But in the instant case the losses of Rs. 7,40,45,748/- (34468539+39577209) was not set off before computing deduction u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act which resulted into under assessment. 3. In view of the discussion in the previous para, the loss to the extent of Rs.1,45,38,400/-has been allowed excessively. Hence, it is clear that there is failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the year in question within the meaning of First provision to section 147 (1) of the Act. 4. In view of the above, I have reason to belie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 10AA for each of the unit. Besides, the petitioner, by letter dated 30 November 2017 had pointed out that there was no sufficient business in other units which resulted in loss in other units. The petitioner pointed out that they had multiple offices till FY 2012-13 and had sizable business in hand, hoping to continue with the same growth rate for 2013-14 and 2014-15. But due to reasons beyond their control, namely cancellation of the project, postponement of the project, etc., many projects estimated to come in 2013-14 and 2014-15 did not come. This resulted in a loss in other units. The petitioner was forced to close its two units at Pune and Hyderabad due to the cancellation and postponement of the project. Along with this communica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l position also favoured the assessee's case. The decisions of the ITAT in the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Limited (supra) were very much available on the date of issue of the impugned reopening notice. 15. In its reply, the revenue admitted that reassessment proceedings were initiated due to audit objection. Significantly, no such reason was given to the petitioner, along with the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment. In any event, considering the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Limited (supra), there was no question of seeking to reopen the assessment on the grounds or th....