Bombay High Court held that as between the date of the orders of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of forming of opinion by the Income-tax Officer nothing new has happened i.e. there is no change in law, no new material came on record and no new information has been received. Hence reopening proceedings was just change of opinion accordingly the same is unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court held that failure on the part of the assessee is a prerequisite for invoking jurisdiction for reopening of assessment. In absence of the same, reopening of assessment is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Reopening notice was issued without any tangible material. Mere change of opinion not provide jurisdiction to Revenue to re-open assessment.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment on the basis of change of opinion without reasons to indicate failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all the material facts is untenable in law.
Bombay High Court held that assessment order was passed after post considering the submission from the assessee regarding deduction under section 80P. Hence, reopening of assessment in absence of any new tangible material is unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, in absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts fully and truly during the regular assessment proceedings, is mere change of opinion and hence liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court held that provision u/s 14(2) of the Income Tax Act does not empower the AO to apply Rule 8D straightaway without considering the correctness of the assessees claim in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income.
Bombay High Court held that material on record doesnt satisfy that all the steps for recovering the tax dues from the company, accordingly, action under section 179 of the Income Tax Act against the directors for recovering the tax dues is unjustified.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of any finding that non-recovery of tax due from the company can be attributed to any gross-negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on the part of the petitioner, no order could have been made u/s 179(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that as per provisions of section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act any order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under Section 254, 263 or 264 should be made within a period of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the order is received. Order passed beyond the same will be time barred.
