II. Today's Tenders Info.
-
-
III. Judicial Pronouncement
1. Tulsi Developers Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Nand Circle, Special Civil Application No. 14455 Of 2010, Date : 15/04/2011, Gujrat High Court
The entire facts regarding FDR bank interest were furnished to the then Assessing Officer who appears to have been of the opinion that the entire investment and income pertains to business only and accordingly net income was worked out and salary paid to partners under section 40(b) of the Act came to be computed. Considering the material placed before the Assessing Officer, it would appear that the Assessing Officer must have applied his mind in taking into consideration the interest income while computing book profit under section 40(b) of the Act. In the circumstances in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to reopen; the reopening of assessment is bad in law.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Hotel Oasis (Surat) Pvt Ltd Versus Dy. Commissioner Of Income - Tax, Circle 1, Special Civil Application No. 10657 Of 2009, Date : 05/05/2011, High Court Of Gujarat
The Assessing Officer has merely placed reliance upon an order passed in relation to assessment year 2006-07 without indicating any connection between the assessments of the present year and the said year. Moreover, the frame of the reasons indicates that according to the Assessing Officer, the same is required to be considered for assessment year 2002-03 after due investigation…On a plain reading of the reasons recorded, it is apparent that insofar as the second ground is concerned, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment merely to make inquiries. Nothing is stated in the reasons recorded to indicate that any income chargeable to tax has actually escaped assessment in relation to the said ground.. Another aspect to be noted is that the petitioner has submitted objections against the detailed reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, raising all contentions raised in the present petition before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, while disposing of the objections, has simply brushed aside the objections raised by the petitioner without dealing with the same by making reference to various judicial decisions. The requirement of dealing with objections is not an empty formality and the Assessing Officer while deciding the same is required to meet with the contentions raised by the assessee if he is of the opinion that the objections are not justified.
(Please click here for judgment)
New User? 
Subscribe Now