Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (2) TMI 710 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Challenge to reopening Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of "reason to believe" for issuing reopening notices.
3. Justification for charging share premium above intrinsic value.
4. Applicability of previous court decisions on the case.

Analysis:
1. The preliminary issue raised by the respondent's counsel was regarding the challenge to the reopening Notice dated 20th March, 2015, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Supreme Court's decision in a related case emphasized that if the original return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act, there should be no change of opinion for issuing a reopening notice. However, the High Court referred to another Supreme Court decision that required the Assessing Officer to have a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, even if the assessment was completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act.

2. The court analyzed the requirement of "reason to believe" for issuing reopening notices. It noted that the Supreme Court had not specifically addressed whether the Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment when the original assessment was completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The court emphasized that the "reason to believe" condition is essential even if the assessment was completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a previous case.

3. The court examined the justification for charging share premium above intrinsic value. The Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment based on the belief that charging share premium above intrinsic value constituted income that had escaped assessment. However, the court found that the Notice did not provide sufficient reasoning or quantify the alleged income that had escaped assessment. The court also referred to a previous decision that held share premium on capital amount cannot be taxed as income.

4. The court discussed the applicability of previous court decisions on the case. The respondent's counsel tried to distinguish earlier decisions, but the court found that those decisions did not further the Revenue's case. The court observed that each case must be evaluated on its own merits, and the decision in a specific case regarding share premium should apply to the present case. The court granted interim relief based on these observations and scheduled the petition for final hearing.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates