Case Law Details
Saif II Mauritius Company Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
In the present cases, the issue of dividend income as well as long term capital gain on the sale of shares requires a detailed consideration.
Further, in the present cases, Section 148 notices have been issued within four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Years. Also no scrutiny assessment has been taken place in the present cases. Consequently, the test to be applied for re-assessment in the present cases is whether there is ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Centre Circle XI, Range Bombay and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 218, the Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘reason to believe’ means that there is some prima facie material on the basis of which the Department can reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the notices dated 30th March, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the orders disposing of the objections dated 11th February, 2022 for the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
