Wp/3405/2019 Of Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture v. Assitant Commisioner Of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4) And 2 Ors
High Court
20 Dec 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/3405/2019 Of Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture v. Assitant Commisioner Of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4) And 2 Ors
Date of order
20 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/3405/2019 Of Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture v. Assitant Commisioner Of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4) And 2 Ors, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
GAURIAMITGAEKWAD
Digitallysigned byGAURI AMITGAEKWADDate:2021.12.2110:28:59+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3405 OF 2019
Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture
….Petitioner
V/s.Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle - 2(4) & Ors.
….Respondents
----
Mr. Harsh M. Kapadia for petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondents.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 20[th] DECEMBER 2021
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
P.C. :
1Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 27[th] March 2019 issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) forAssessment Year 2012-2013 and the order dated 5[th] October 2019 rejectingthe objections.
1
2We have considered the reasons annexed to the petition. Thenotice under Section 148 of the said Act being issued after the expiry of fouryears and and the assessment having been completed under Section 143(3)of the said Act, the proviso to Section 147 of the said Act applies.Respondents have to show there was failure to truly and fully disclosematerial facts. We have considered the reasons and there is nothing toindicate there was failure to disclose any material fact. The entire reasons isbased on change of opinion which is not permissible. According to the
Assessing Officer, the interest expense, which had been allowed earlier asrevenue expenditure, should be allowed as business expenditure in ratio ofthe revenue offered from the project and work in progress at the end of theyear. The entire basis starts with "on perusal of the records". Infact when thecase was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed underSection 143(3) of the said Act, vide order dated 17[th] March 2015, theAssessing Officer had accepted petitioner's assessment of total income at aloss of Rs.19,05,42,694/-.
3In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause - (a) which reads as under :
(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased toissue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the natureof Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ,Order or direction, calling for the records of thePetitioner's case and after going into the legalityand propriety thereof, to quash and set aside thesaid notice dated 27[th] March 2019 (Exhibit I)and the subsequent Order dated 5[th] October2019 (Exhibit L).
4Petition disposed.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, 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.