The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.nicholas Piramal India Ltd
High Court
28 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.nicholas Piramal India Ltd
Date of order
28 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.nicholas Piramal India Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In these circumstances, we quash the entire assessment as time barred and without jurisdiction.” 3.We find no fault with the view taken by the Tribunal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.867 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.M/s.Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant.Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 28TH JULY, 2009
DATE :
P.C.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2.The question sought to be raised in the appeal revolves around reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the I.T.Act beyond four years. The Tribunal has, in its order clearly recorded a finding that;
“...................In the light of the ratio of the decision of the various High Courts referred to hereinabove, we are of the opinion that reopening of assessment u/s.147 beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, when an assessment u/s.143(3) has been made, for the purpose of excluding part of ‘other income’, which has been clearly shown and included in computing relief u/s.80HH in the original assessment, is clearly barred under proviso to Sec.147(1). In these circumstances, we quash the entire assessment as time barred and without jurisdiction.”
3.We find no fault with the view taken by the Tribunal. The appeal is without any substantial question of law. The same is, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,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.