In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai v. Weizmann Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee for assessment year 2000-01 beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4167 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Weizmann Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 25[th] July, 2011.
1.Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reassessment
proceedings initiated against the assessee for assessment year 2000-01 beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The Tribunal has quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment and mere fact that Section 80HHC (3) has been amended with retrospective effect from 1st April 1998 by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005, cannot be a ground to reopen the assessment beyond four years.
3.In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the order of
the Tribunal in quashing the reassessment proceedings. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. Sayed, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.