Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

he reopening of assessment is founded on the premise that the petitioner did not disclose the transactions between the loan giver company in which he had shareholding not less than 10 per cent of the voting power and the loan receiver concerns in which he had substantial interest. However, as discussed earlier, when the amount received by the two concerns from the loan giver company was neither received by the petitioner nor was it for the benefit of the petitioner, such amount cannot be considered as deemed dividend in the hands of the petitioner, and consequently no income accrued to the petitioner from such transactions. In the absence of any finding having been recorded by the Assessing Officer that any income had accrued in favour of the petitioner, it is not possible to say that there was any obligation cast upon him to disclose such transactions. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, the reopening of assessment beyond a period of four years from the relevant assessment is without authority of law. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned notice dated 27.03.2015 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reopening the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2008-09, as well as all proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961— Remission or cessation of trading liability – Since there was no deliberate or intentional failure to pay advance tax on the book profit by the assessee, ITAT was justified in affirming the view taken by the first appellate authority that the charge of interest under sections 234B and 234C on the book profit was not justified. - PR. CIT V/s MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. - [2020] 426 ITR 266 (BOM)