| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1810 1992 SLD 1810 (1992) 197 ITR 593 |
Bombay High Court
MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND T.D. SUGLA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND T.D. SUGLA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Khetani Textile Industries P. Ltd.
Law:
Section:
Section 256, read with section 24(1)(iv), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Reference - Question of fact - Assessment year 1974-75 - Assessee-company was allowed deduction under section 24(1)(vi) in respect of amount paid as interest on mortgage of immovable property - Subsequently ITO initiated proceedings under section 147(b) on ground that assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 24(1)(vi) - Whether any question of law arose from Tribunal's order holding that this was a case of change of opinion regarding same material on record - Held, no FACTS While completing the assessment pertaining to the assessment year 1974-7S, the ITO allowed deduction in respect of the amount paid as interest on the mortgage of immovable property. This amount was disallowed out of the claim as business income being allowed as deduction against the property. Subsequently, the ITO initiated proceedings under section 147(b) on the ground that the interest paid by the assessee on mortgage of the property was not allowable as a deduction under section 24(1)(vi) and there by the income of the assessee escaped assessment. On appeal, the Tribunal held that it was a clear case of the ITO's changing opinion on the same set of facts and, thus, the ITO had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of section 147(b). The reference application of revenue was rejected. On an application under section 256(2): HELD One of the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under section 147(b), admittedly, is that the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment is formed by the ITO inconsequence of information received after the assessment is completed. This requirement was not satisfied and, therefore, no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order holding that it was a case of change of opinion regarding the same material on the record and the ITO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). G.S. Jetly, Mrs. Manjula Singh and K.C. Sidhwa for the Applicant. Dilip Dwarkadas and S.H. Paralkar for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Sugla,J. - By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the department has contended that theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492