| Case ID |
2bf9e1d7-5f82-476a-9a6c-6b299f15cd46 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 370 OF 1975 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 23, 1978 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Calcutta High Court found that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, were not validly initiated. The court held that the ITO's reassessment was based solely on a difference in opinion, and there was no extrinsic information or change in law that warranted the reassessment. The court emphasized that the mere change of opinion does not provide sufficient grounds for reopening the assessment. Additionally, the court did not find it necessary to address the merits of other questions raised, as the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings was sufficient to resolve the case. Therefore, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the validity of reassessment proceedings conducted under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Income-tax Officer initially included dividend reserves in the assessment for the assessment year 1965-66 but later excluded them in subsequent reassessments without any new information or change in law. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's action, but the High Court found the reassessment invalid, emphasizing that a mere change of opinion does not constitute valid grounds for reopening an assessment. This case is significant for its implications on the principles governing reassessment proceedings in tax law, particularly regarding the necessity of new information for valid reassessments. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
Dipak Kumar Sen,
Bimal Chandra Basak
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. Debi Pal,
J.C. Shah,
B.L. Pal,
B.K. Naha
|
| Petitioners |
Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1980 SLD 1168,
(1980) 125 ITR 270
|
| Other Citations |
Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S.P. Kushare, STO [1968] 21 STC 326 (SC),
Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC),
Braithwaite & Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 729 (Cal.),
CIT v. Aryodaya Ginning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1957] 31 ITR 145 (Bom.),
CIT v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah [1971] 82 ITR 367 (SC),
CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. [1978] 112 ITR 973 (Guj.),
CIT v. Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 489 (Guj.),
CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC),
Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1973] 89 ITR 171 (Cal.),
ITO v. Panama (P.) Ltd. [1974] 97 ITR 210 (Cal.),
Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC),
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC),
R.K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC),
Reform Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 150 (Cal.),
Smt. Sarla Devi v. CED [1976] 103 ITR 652 (All.),
Shri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 562 (Mad.),
United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
|
| Sections |
8(b)
|