AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, MOHINDER PAL
Olwin Tiles (India) (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.
1. These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may refer to the facts arising in SCA No. 17307 of 2015. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the asst. yr. 2011-12, the petitioner filed return of income on 17th Oct., 2011 declaring nil income. Such return was processed under s. 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and thus accepted without any scrutiny. The AO later on issued impugned notice Dt. 2nd March, 2015 under s. 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the said asst. yr. 2011-12. He supplied to the petitioner the reasons recorded for issuing such notice, which read as under:
"In this case, on verification of records, it is found that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. On the basis of information available with this office, assessee company had issued its shares at huge premiums during financial year 2010-11. On verification of "Part-A-BS" of return of income filed by the assessee company, it is found that
ITO & Ors. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 : (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)
Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30 : (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)
Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. us. ITO (1991) 98 CTR (SC) 161 : (1991) 191 ITR 662 (SC)
ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 162 : (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC)
A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (SC) 133 : (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.