TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d invoking Section 147 of the Income Tax Act petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Petitioner is a company involved in the business of construction of flats and villas. Company is also involved in real estate development. For the assessment year 2007-08 petitioner company filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,24,120/-. The return was processed and the case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed vide order dated 29.12.2009. Total income of the petitioner was computed at Rs.1,03,58,750/-. Petitioner's appeal against the assessment was partly allowed. Based on the appellate order consequential orders were passed on 20.8.2010. Petitioner company filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sufficient to justify a reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. All matters which were pointed out in Ext.P5 were disclosed in the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the petitioner company. Moreover, the petitioner company was issued with a proforma on 18.9.2009 invoking Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Various details were sought from the petitioner on two different occasions by the assessing authority during the course of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Ext.P13 notice dated 18.9.2009 along with Ext.P14 notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with its Annexure are pointed out in this regard. Petitioner submitted Exts.P15 and P16 in response. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Officer and Ors [(2003) 1 SCC 72]. 2. Raza Textiles Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Rampur [(1973) 1 SCC 633]. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 2 SCC 723] 4. Marico Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors [(2020) 425 ITR 177 (Bom)]. 5. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors v. Marico Ltd.[(2020) 16 SCC 354]. 6. Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala [(1988) 69 STC 62]. 6. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that a survey under Section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 12.3.2010. On verification of the documents and records impounded during the course of survey operation, excess depreciation claimed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....first time contention regarding limitation was raised in the reply affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submitted that the contention regarding limitation may not be considered. 7. Regarding the contention on limitation, there is uncertainty or lack of clarity on facts. There are no materials to show when the order was despatched. Other than a margin note made by the petitioner on the copy he received, there is nothing to show as to when it was actually delivered. Moreover as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel there is no contention regarding limitation in the writ petition. Only in the reply affidavit the petitioner raised a contention with respect to limitation. Therefore, in my considered view, the issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its and the claim of depreciation 2) depreciation eligible on computer software and 3) the mode of recognition of income on work-in-progress of turnkey projects. 4) Non remittance of TDS within the stipulated date Though the issue regarding TDS was also pointed out in Ext.P5 as a reason for re-opening it was not taken into account in Ext.P12 assessment order. Therefore, the said aspect need not be considered. Regarding the other three aspects the learned counsel pointed out with reference to Exts.P14 and P15 that the details with regard to fixed assets namely the breakup of additions or deletions along with the copies of invoices/bills were called for by the assessing authority during the scrutiny under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that the Assessing Officer during the course of regular assessment proceedings leading to the assessment order dated January 30, 2018, on the basis of the profit and loss account and balance-sheet and the practice for the earlier years, i.e., the assessment year 2013-14, had issued notice on September 25, 2017, to the petitioner to show cause why the amount of Rs.47.04 crores being claimed as book depreciation on intangibles should not be disallowed to determine book profits under section 115JB of the Act. The above query of the Assessing Officer was responded to by the petitioner in great detail by its letters dated October 10, 2017 and December 21, 2017. It justified its claim for deductions by placing reliance upon the decisions of th....