Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Kalpataru Land Private Limited – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12867 of 2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-12-2021 in WP No. 3231 of 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
Decided On : 18-08-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. re-opening of assessments regarded as change of opinion. (Para 1) |
| 2. dismissal of special leave petition. (Para 2 , 3) |
ORDER :
1. Considering the fact that earlier the Assessing Officer had called upon the petitioner(s) to produce the evidence in support of increase of authorised share-capital, produce the evidence of share allotment and names and addresses of the parties from whom share-premium was received, among other things and thereafter, the Assessing Officer finalised the assessment and passed Assessment Order, the subsequent re-opening can be said to be change of opinion. Under the circumstances, the re-opening is rightly set aside by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the same.
2. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed
3. Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of.
Re-opening of assessment is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion without new findings or evidence.
The court ruled that reopening an assessment after four years without demonstrable non-disclosure of material facts contravenes statutory provisions, rendering such reassessment legally impermissible....
Reopening of assessment under Section 148 is impermissible if it is based on previously examined issues without new material.
Intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such appli....
Reopening of assessments under Section 147 requires tangible evidence of income escapement, not just a change of opinion.
Reopening of assessment beyond four years without failure to disclose material facts is invalid; share premium treated as capital receipt not taxable under Section 68 prior to 2013 amendment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
