IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs. Justice J. Nisha Banu, Mrs. Justice R. Kalaimathi, JJ
Pharmazell (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Large Tax Payers Unit – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order of this Court dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8014 of 2022, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein viz., assessee.
2. The appellant has filed the above said writ petition challenging the impugned notice issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') dated 30.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 along with the impugned order disposing off the objections of the Appellant/petitioner dated 15.02.2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 passed by the third respondent.
3. The appellant company is engaged in manufacturing and selling of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), amino acids and their intermediates, primarily to the customers in the International markets. The appellant company is assessed to income tax under the jurisdiction of the First Respondent. During the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 2013-2014, the appellant had issued credit notes aggregating to Rs.11,96,04,791/- and claimed the same amount as deduction in the original return of income filed by it. Subsequently, the Authorized D
Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is justified when there is failure to disclose material facts, even beyond the four-year limit.
Reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is impermissible if the issues were previously examined during the original assessment, as it constitutes a change of opinion.
Reassessment under Section 148 is impermissible if the issues were previously examined, constituting a change of opinion.
Assessee’s objections raised against the reopening proceedings are not acceptable as the case warrants scrutiny on the same lines. Accordingly, the objections so raised are hereby disposed off accord....
Reopening of assessment requires tangible material indicating income has escaped assessment; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
Reopening of assessments under the Income Tax Act requires new material facts; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
Taxation - Escapement of assessment - Assessee had disclosed all material facts truly and fully for assessment of income for year under consideration. In other words there was no failure to disclose ....
Reopening of assessment is “sufficient reason” to believe that there is escapement of income and the “sufficiency” of the reasons cannot be gone into by the High Court in a writ proceedings under Art....
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient for reassessment.
Reopening of assessment beyond four years without fresh tangible material or proper disposal of objections is illegal under the Income Tax Act.
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.