Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3834 2007 SLD 3834 (2007) 293 ITR 271
Bombay High Court

F.I. REBELLO AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, 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


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

[2007] 293 ITR 271 (BOM.) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Asian Cerc Information Services (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer F.I. REBELLO AND J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 2903 OF 2006 JULY 17, 2007 Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - General â–  Where assessee's objection to notice under section 148 regarding non-applicability of certain decision of High Court was dismissed while Assessing Officer himself in a communication to auditor had taken the view that said decision was not applicable, Assessing Officer's rejection of assessee's objection showed total non-application of mind and was to be set aside Reassessment notice was issued on 10-3-2006 Pursuant to the request by the petitioners the 'reasons to believe' were communicated. The reasons recorded that considering the of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Arawali Constructions Co. (P.) Ltd.[2002] 177 CTR (Raj.) 79/[2003] 259 ITR 30 (Raj.) the nature of the expenses incurred by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 62,79,638 needed to be examined and were required to be capitalised. The assessee's objection regarding the non-applicability of the said decision was dismissed by the Assessing Officer. However there was a communication by the Assessing Officer addressed to the senior audit officer wherein the of the Rajasthan High Court was sought to be distinguished and a view was taken that the said would not apply to the facts of the petitioner's case. That view taken by the Assessing Officer was endorsed by the Commissioner by communication addressed to the Director, C/o Principal Auditor, Central Audit and Accounts Department. It was, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that once the Assessing Officer was of the view that the of the Rajasthan High Court was not applicable the objections filed ought to have been accepted. Held that while disposing of the objections the Assessing Officer had not given any reason as to why the Assessing Officer had now come to the view different from the earlier view taken while addressing the letter to the auditor to remove the objections, that the of the Rajasthan High Court, which earlier in his opinion was not applicable,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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