Big Win for MakeMyTrip! ITAT Slams Income Tax Reopening After 4 Years, says No Failure to Disclose, No Reassessment:

The ITAT Delhi held that reopening the assessment after four years without new evidence was invalid and beyond the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction.
Tribunal Rules That Reassessment Was Time-Barred and Based on Mere Change of Opinion

Big Win for MakeMyTrip! ITAT Slams Income Tax Reopening After 4 Years, says No Failure to Disclose, No Reassessment
The present appeal has been filed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against Make My Trip (India) P. Limited (Respondent) in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench “D”, Delhi, before Shri Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member). The case is related to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The final decision on the matter was announced on November 10, 2025. Background of Case The assessee filed its income tax return (ITR), declaring NIL income after setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The assessment in the case of the assessee for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 was completed on January 31, 2011, under Section 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tax officer accepted the figures after adjustments. Later on March 31, 2014, the case of the assessee for AY 2007-08 was reopened, and a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. In adherence with the notice, on May 01, 2014, the assessee filed its income tax return (ITR), declaring a total loss of Rs. 35,392,590,4. The reason behind reopening the case was shared with the assessee on September 29, 2014. The reason was that the assessee did not deduct TDS (tax at source) on about Rs. 3.6 crore paid to its foreign associate (MakeMyTrip Inc.) for reimbursement of ticket costs. At the end of the assessment, AO made an addition of Rs. 36,001,993 to the assessee's income. Assessee's Arguments On the action of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee served the following arguments:- The reopening was done after four years, which is not allowed unless the company failed to disclose important information earlier.
- It claimed that they had already furnished all the details asked in the initial return and Form 3CEB (for international transactions) for the said assessment year.
- Further claimed, the reopening of the case was based on earlier shared information and not newly furnished information, which is just a change of opinion, not valid under the law.
- The reopening happened after four years, so the tax officer must show that the company failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts, which he did not.
- There was no new or fresh evidence found by the department.
- The earlier assessment had already checked these transactions, including Form 3CEB.
- So, reopening the case was illegal and beyond jurisdiction.
- In the final decision, the tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment for both the financial years (2007-08 and 2008-09).
- Therefore, the assessee’s Cross Objections were allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2702My Recent Articles
- ITAT Condoned Delay After Noting Indeed Technical Glitch on E-filing Portal and Restores Section 12A and 80G ApplicationsPremium
- ITAT Rejects Section 69A Unexplained Money Addition Based on Alleged Over-Invoicing Entry Found in Third-Party SearchPremium
- ITAT Condoned 336-Day Delay in Section 68 Case After Taxpayer Cites Lack Of Online Communication AwarenessPremium
- United Breweries Secures Full Relief from Bombay High Court in Rs 21.92 Crore Service Tax Dispute
- Aries Agro Faces Rs 3.96 Crore GST Demand Over ITC Availment from Retrospectively Cancelled Vendors
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Tags
Recent Posts
All Posts









