Case Law Details
Case Name : M/s Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Delhi High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Brief of the Case
High Court held In the case of M/s Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT that in this case, queries and issues have been specifically raised and answered by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Thus, even though AO did not make any addition in the assessment order, it would have to be accepted that the issue was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find any ground or reason to make any addition or to reject the stand of the assessee. Consequently, it
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
There are hundreds of decision of the courts including highest court where is the issue of re-opening assessment on same facts and material already on record not allowable however this is the department take action without any recourse or ignoring the findings of the several courts on subject matter and issue.
What is the requirement as per law to proceed in a case “Income escaping assessment”
1. The AO has “reason to believe” that
2. any income chargeable to tax
3. has escapement of assessment
4. subject to provisions of section 148 to 153
5. escapement by reason of the failure on the part of assessee
6. to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment
7. production account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered
Further these are the judgments discussed in length the aforesaid:
(i) Moonbeam Finvest Lease Ltd vs ITO (2008)(ITAT Delhi)- “Reason to believe” or “Due application of mind”
(ii) CIT vs Orient Craft Limited reported in 354 ITR 536 (Delhi)- “Tangible material”
(iii) Fenner (India) Limited vs DCIT 241 ITR 672 (Mad)- “furnishing material facts truly and fully”
(iv) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Vijay Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Delhi)- Mere adverse statements from others does not constitute information, unless the AO made further enquiries before taking action.