Doshi Housing Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

Case Laws Analysis
Followed Aayojan Developers v. ITO 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0899 (Guj-HC)
Followed CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC)
Followed CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd. 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1482 (Mad-HC)
Followed Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. Assistant CIT 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1215 (Del-HC)
Followed Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Deputy CIT 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0299 (Mum-Trib)
Followed Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC)
Followed Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0453 (Mad-HC)
Followed Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1453 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersW.P. No. 29069 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0187 (Mad-HC) : (2013) 049 (I) ITCL 0020 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Reassessment--Full and true disclosure Notice after expiry of four years-- Revenue had completed assessments under section 143(3) and disallowed deduction under section 80-IB(10). Aggrieved with this, assessee filed an appeal and it was allowed. Thereafter, revenue filed an appeal which was pending before High Court. In the meantime, revenue had issued a notice under section 148 to assessee-company on the ground that assessee operate only as a contractor and not as builder and in light of Explanation in section 80-IB(10), with retrospective effect, assessee was not eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IB(10). *Held:* Revenue had issued a notice for reopening of assessment under section 147 without recording the fact that assessee had failed to, fully and truly disclose material facts which were relevant for passing of the original assessment order. Therefore, the jurisdiction of revenue under section 147 after expiry of four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year, was illegal and invalid. Accordingly, the proceedings, under section 147 could not be sustained. Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 & section 80-IB In the Madras High Court M. Jaichandren, J. Doshi Housing Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT W.P. No. 29069 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011 A.Y. 2006-07 27 April, 2012 Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 148 *Decision:* In assessees favour. Petitioner by : Jehangir D. J. Mistri and R. Sivaraman Respondent by : J. Narayanasamy ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the impugned notice, dated 1-3-2011, issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the consequential proceedings, dated 25-11-2011, issued by the respondent, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, against the re-opening of the assessment, in respect of the assessment year 2006-2007, under section 147 of the Act. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a domestic private limited company, engaged in the business of construction of residential/commercial complexes. The petitioner company had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-2007 admitting a total income of Rs.2,65,46,989. The return of income, filed by the petitioner company, had been processed, under section 143(1) of the Act. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersW.P. No. 29069 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
2013 TaxPub(DT) 0187 (Mad-HC) : (2013) 049 (I) ITCL 0020

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Reassessment--Full and true disclosure Notice after expiry of four years-- Revenue had completed assessments under section 143(3) and disallowed deduction under section 80-IB(10). Aggrieved with this, assessee filed an appeal and it was allowed. Thereafter, revenue filed an appeal which was pending before High Court. In the meantime, revenue had issued a notice under section 148 to assessee-company on the ground that assessee operate only as a contractor and not as builder and in light of Explanation in section 80-IB(10), with retrospective effect, assessee was not eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IB(10). Held: Revenue had issued a notice for reopening of assessment under section 147 without recording the fact that assessee had failed to, fully and truly disclose material facts which were relevant for passing of the original assessment order. Therefore, the jurisdiction of revenue under section 147 after expiry of four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year, was illegal and invalid. Accordingly, the proceedings, under section 147 could not be sustained.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 & section 80-IB

In the Madras High Court M. Jaichandren, J.

Doshi Housing Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

W.P. No. 29069 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011

A.Y. 2006-07

27 April, 2012

Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 148

Decision: In assessees favour.

Petitioner by : Jehangir D. J. Mistri and R. Sivaraman

Respondent by : J. Narayanasamy

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the impugned notice, dated 1-3-2011, issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the consequential proceedings, dated 25-11-2011, issued by the respondent, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, against the re-opening of the assessment, in respect of the assessment year 2006-2007, under section 147 of the Act.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a domestic private limited company, engaged in the business of construction of residential/commercial complexes. The petitioner company had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-2007 admitting a total income of Rs.2,65,46,989. The return of income, filed by the petitioner company, had been processed, under section 143(1) of the Act.