Select Design
You can update Firmname, Logo, Profession, Mobile, Email, Address from Profile.
HC cites lack of fresh material as reason for non-opening of assessment.
Axis Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1)
20-04-2023
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19336 OF 2021
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the re-opening of an assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the 2015-2016 tax year was impermissible as there was no fresh tangible material distinct from what was made a part of the assessment proceedings.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
HC cites lack of fresh material as reason for non-opening of assessment.
Axis Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1)
20-04-2023
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19336 OF 2021
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the re-opening of an assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the 2015-2016 tax year was impermissible as there was no fresh tangible material distinct from what was made a part of the assessment proceedings.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample HC cites lack of fresh material as reason for non-opening of assessment.
Axis Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1)
20-04-2023
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19336 OF 2021
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the re-opening of an assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the 2015-2016 tax year was impermissible as there was no fresh tangible material distinct from what was made a part of the assessment proceedings.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample HC cites lack of fresh material as reason for non-opening of assessment.
Axis Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1)
20-04-2023
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19336 OF 2021
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the re-opening of an assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the 2015-2016 tax year was impermissible as there was no fresh tangible material distinct from what was made a part of the assessment proceedings.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample HC cites lack of fresh material as reason for non-opening of assessment.
Axis Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1)
20-04-2023
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19336 OF 2021
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the re-opening of an assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the 2015-2016 tax year was impermissible as there was no fresh tangible material distinct from what was made a part of the assessment proceedings.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample HC cites lack of fresh material as reason for non-opening of assessment.
Axis Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1)
20-04-2023
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19336 OF 2021
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the re-opening of an assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the 2015-2016 tax year was impermissible as there was no fresh tangible material distinct from what was made a part of the assessment proceedings.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.
The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample 