9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not valid in law and as such re-assessment proceedings have been repeatedly again quashed and set aside by the Courts. See INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY [ 1979 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] , JAGAT JAYANTILAL PARIKH [ 2013 (5) TMI 330 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and ICICI HOME FINANCE CO. LTD. [ 2012 (8) TMI 312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] As the reasons for reopening of the assessment are almost identically worded as that of audit report. In view of the foregoing, since, in the case at hand also the reopening of the assessment being at the behest of the audit party, the reopening of the assessment is misconceived, incorrect and bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2022 - K.R. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (the said Act ) came to be issued. At the request of Petitioner, reasons recorded for reopening assessment was also provided by communication dated 2 September, 2019. As the notice has been issued after expiry of four years from the end of relevant Assessment Year and Assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act, proviso to section 147 shall apply. The case is that Respondent has to show that there was failure on the part of Petitioner to disclose truly and fully material facts required for the assessment. Shri Suresh Kumar submitted that the reasons do mention that there has been failure to disclose. Having considered the reasons, in our view, a statement, in the reasons for reopening, that there has been failure to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of additional depreciation during the present AY are not in order. 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income : During the year under consideration, as per the detailed facts and discussion hereinabove, it is seen that claim of depreciation on software licences is allowable at the rate of 25% rather than 60%. Therefore, the correct depreciation allowable is ₹ 70,95,954/- in place of claimed depreciation of ₹ 1,69,43,891/- (difference amounting to ₹ 98,83,937). Further, the claim of additional depreciation on plant and machinery amounting to ₹ 24,59,58,375/- is not allowable. Therefore, based on the above facts, the undersigned has reason to believe that the income charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates that there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer before he issued the impugned notice. On this ground alone, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer can be faulted. (iii) IL FS Investment Managers Ltd., v/s. ITO and Ors (2008) 298 ITR 32 (Bom.) : Reopening of assessment pursuant to audit objection that depreciation was not admissible on intangible assets was not valid. Thus, reopening of the assessment without any basis and merely on change of opinion, was not permissible. vi. Jagat Jayantilal Parikh vs. DCIT (2013) 32 taxmann.com 161 (Guj.) : The reasons for reopening of the assessment are almost identically worded as that of audit report. No material worth the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
