In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S. Cadbury India Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C.: The question raised in this Appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reassessment order passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 by holding that the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 was not valid.
Decision: Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
SSM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2293 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-5.... AppellantVERSUS
M/s. Cadbury India Ltd.
.... Respondent
Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.Mr. Yuvraj K. Singh i/by Cr. Bayley & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM:J. P. DEVDHAR and MRIDULA BHATKAR J.J.DATED:JANUARY 25, 2011.
P.C.:
The question raised in this Appeal is whether the Tribunal
was justified in quashing the reassessment order passed under Section
143 (3) read with Section 147 by holding that the re-opening of the
assessment under Section 147 was not valid.
2.Perusal of the order passed by the ITAT shows that in the
SSM
2123.itxa.2293.10
present case, the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond a
period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and
the Tribunal has recorded finding of the fact, that in the present case
there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment.
2.In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is based on
finding of the fault and no fault can be found in the order of the
Tribunal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)
(J. P. DEVDHAR, 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.