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

After several rounds of communication, respondent No. 1videletter dated 4-12-2001 furnished the reasons for re-opening of assessment to the petitioner. As per the reasons furnished, respondent No. 1 was of the view that by claiming gross receipts as exempt and claiming the cost of borrowing etc. from its business income, petitioner in fact claimed double deduction which is not permissible in law. It is also stated that petitioner had not furnished details of expenses incurred to earn interest on approved foreign exchange loans. However, based on the data from the assessment year 1998-99, the cost for earning interest on such lending comes to more than 80%. Thus, excess exemption was allowed by more than Rs. 280 crores. This resulted in escapement of income by allowing excess exemption under section 10(15)(iv)(c) and (f) of the Act.Aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Reassessment – The petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 30-3-2001 issued under section 148 of the IT Act, for the A.Y. 1990-91 and subsequent notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the said Act. Beyond the period of four years when an assessment is sought to be re-opened, there must be failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The petitioner had already furnished all required material on record. Thus, while allowing the writ petition, High Court set aside all the impugned notices holding that ”the condition precedent for re-opening the concluded assessment of the petitioner is absent in the present case. In such circumstances, issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is clearly without jurisdiction and is therefore illegal and invalid“. - STATE BANK OF INDIA V/s VINEET AGRAWAL - [2020] 428 ITR 519 (BOM)