9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and trading in animal health care products. On 30th November, 2013 petitioner filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income at NIL and carrying forward current loss of Rs. 28,33,44,787/-. Pursuant to the order passed by this court on 5th December, 2014 Pfizer Animal Pharma Private Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner has been amalgamated with petitioner with effect from 1st April, 2012. Pursuant to the amalgamation and to incorporate the effect of amalgamation, return was revised on 31st March, 2015 declaring total income at NIL after carrying forward current years loss of Rs. 117,08,39,375/-. 3. Petitioner received a notice dated 13th March, 2020 under Section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 seekin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t etc. The assessee has claimed this expenditure in violation of the said circular and prohibition imposed by the Indian Medical Council which is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 3,99,03,688/- has escaped assessment. 6. As regards the first point, i.e., valuation of shares as per discounted cash flow method and addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, in our view it is nothing but change of opinion. The first point has been considered and discussed during the assessment proceedings. Petitioner has annexed to the petition a letter dated 23rd December, 2016 and another letter dated 26th December, 2016 where petitioner has given details of the shares issued by the company, provided valuation repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et of facts. When primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. On consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not open to reopen the assessment passed on the very same material with a view to take another view. The Division Bench of this court in Cartini India Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom), 3i Infotech Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 192 Taxman 137 (Bombay) and Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2021] 131 taxmann.com 52 (Bombay) held that when on con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
