9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Petitioner in March, 2010 i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11. Section 56(2)(viia) not being retrospective, would have no application. Thus, it was submitted that there was no reason to believe that there was any income on account of short fall in consideration paid during the AY 2010-11. The order disposing of the objections, does not deal with any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. S. Sanklecha And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. Jitendra Jain with Mr. A. K. Jasani, for the Petitioner Mr. Tejinder Singh, for the Respondents ORDER P. C. Heard. 2 RULE. 3 This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a notice dated 30th March, 2017 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Sections 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer proceeds to form a reasonable belief that to the extent there was short fall in the consideration paid, there was an escapement of income which is taxable under Section 56 of the Act. 5 Petitioner filed its objections. In its objections, it was particularly pointed out the valuation report of the Government approved valuer was not furnished to them along with the reasons. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... believe that there was any income on account of short fall in consideration paid during the Assessment Year 2010-11. The order disposing of the objections, does not deal with any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner. 6 The entire exercise of raising objections and the Assessing Officer taking second look at the impugned notice is turned into an empty formality, if the objections are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
