GAS & POWER INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1118/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 February 2016AY 2006-0714 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no fresh tangible material available to the Assessing Officer to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. The reopening was based on the same set of facts already on record.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened based on the Assessing Officer's belief that certain expenses claimed as revenue were capital in nature. The AO believed income had escaped assessment due to these disallowances.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid in the absence of any new tangible material, and whether the disallowances made were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 43B,Section 40A(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(12)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 28.01.2016Pronounced: 05.02.2016

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →