Hindoostan Mills Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The AY 2014-15 reopening concerned carried-forward amalgamation losses. Earlier section 263 proceedings for AY 2011-12 had led to verification under section 72 A and an assessment accepting losses of Rs.88,07,62,670. Revenue audit later disagreed with the fresh eight-year treatment.

Source: PDF p. 3

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court found no failure of disclosure and no new tangible material. The reasons arose from the existing record and revisited a matter already examined. The proposed reopening was change of opinion, not correction of an unnoticed item.

Source: PDF p. 5

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The 30 March 2021 section 148 notice and 14 February 2022 rejection of objections were quashed. Further action pursuant to them was prohibited; no costs were awarded.

Source: PDF p. 6

4. OUTCOME

The reassessment failed on jurisdiction. This does not establish a universal fresh eight-year entitlement for every amalgamation.

Source: PDF p. 6

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Separate the loss debate from the jurisdictional holding

The audit contested fresh eight-year availability against an unexpired balance. The Court’s disposition addressed reopening of the examined record; it should not be presented as a general computation rule for all section 72 A cases.

Source: PDF p. 4

Prior verification is central to the change-of-opinion analysis

The section 263 direction and ensuing assessment show actual examination of the amalgamation conditions and loss claim. The later disagreement did not create new tangible material or establish non-disclosure.

Source: PDF p. 3

Keep the operative prohibition tied to these instruments

The Court prohibited action pursuant to the particular notice and objection order it quashed. That protection is not a declaration against every possible proceeding for every year.

Source: PDF p. 6