9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicability of Section 115JB of the Act in respect of the Respondent as it is Banking Company. This question would have only assumed importance if the reopening notice was within jurisdiction. In the above facts, we have not examined the applicability of Section 115JB of the Act to Banking Companies. - Income Tax Appeal No. 616 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 28-9-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And S. C. Gupte, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms. Samiksha Kanani, for the Appellant ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 13th September, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the said section, and therefore no such claim of the assessee was admissible except through a revised return of income as held by the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323)? Brief facts: 3. For the subject Assessment Year, the RespondentAssessee had filed its return of income, declaring a loss of ₹ 532 Crores under the normal provisions of the Act and ₹ 163 Crores under Section 115JB of the Act. On 28th December, 2007, an Assessment Order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the loss of ₹ 178 Crores under the normal provisions of the Act. 4. On 6th October,2010, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer, seeking to reopen the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year without any allegation of failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for Assessment. Consequently, the order dated 10th December, 2010 was set aside. 8. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). It held that the reopening notice being beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, without any basis to allege any failure on the part of the Respondent to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for Assessment, was without jurisdiction. The impugned order also upheld the alternate submission of Section115 JB of the Act not being applicable to the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
