9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and provisions for diminution in the value of investments. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against revenue in view of the decision in the case of IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010 (6) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein it is observed that the reassessment based on retrospective amendment is bad in law. In the present case the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued prior to the amendment and once this is the position, the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee. The reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act has rightly been quashed by CIT(A) and we confirm the same. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 395/Kol/2012 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - Mahavir Singh, JM And B P Jain, AM,JJ. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is matter was carried in appeal before CIT(A) and appeal was allowed in favour of assessee. Against the order of appellate state in first round, Department preferred appeal before Tribunal and Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue but allowed the Cross Objection filed by assessee with a direction to provide reasons and pass a speaking order on the objections in respect of issuance of notice u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19, 20 (SC). In terms of above direction of the Tribunal, the AO provided copies of reason recorded therein and mainly the reasons recorded wee on the following three points:- (i) Lease equalisation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities as well. Secondly, it is apparently clear from the facts of the case as brought out by the Assessing Officer that though the assessment was reopened before the amendment in sec. 115JA of the Act with retrospective effect from 1.4.2001. There, the facts of the case are squarely covered by the decision of IOT Infrastructure Energy Services Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Another 332 ITR 587 (Bom) cited supra. In this reported case, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 266 and Rallies India Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT (2010) 37 DTR (Bom) 143 have been relied on. Further the cases of Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) and CIT vs. British Paints In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2 Act, 2009 in section 115JA of the Act in respect to proposed additions on account of provisions for nonperforming assets and provisions for diminution in the value of investments. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against revenue in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of IOT Infrastructure Energy Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587(Bom), wherein it is observed that the reassessment based on retrospective amendment is bad in law and for this Hon'ble High Court observed as under: 11. In the present case, it would also be necessary to note that the reasons of the Assessing Officer were recorded before the provisions of Section 115JB were amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
