There is no satisfaction recorded by AO before initiating proceedings under section 153C. Inspite of giving sufficiently adequate time to the Revenue for production of the necessary records and considering the fact that AO refused to allow inspection to assessee as recorded by the bench on 20.04.2011, we have no option than to take an adverse view that no satisfaction was recorded by AO before issuance of notice under section 1 53C.
The main aim of the Pharmaceutical Industry is to develop, research and distribute drugs in order to provide health care for the people in the society. Pharmaceutical companies are allowed to deal in generic and/or brand medications and medical devices. Just like any other industry, they are also subject to various rules and regulations regarding the patenting, testing and ensuring safety and efficacy and marketing of drugs.
An assessee’s duty to establish that the amounts which the AO proposes to add back, under Section 68 are properly sourced, does not cease by merely furnishing the names, addresses and PAN particulars, or relying on entries in a Registrar of Companies website.
In the present case, the main business of the petitioner is manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products and the vehicles are used by it in the course of business (as written by Respondent No.-2 in the impugned order (Annexure A-1)). This may lead to the inference that proceeds from the sales of such vehicles should have been included in the turnover and must be taxed accordingly.
In the facts of the present case also, it may be that if the Assessing Officer had made some efforts and examined the record of the previous assessment year, he may have come to know that this was a search and could have taken consequent action thereon. However, that by itself would not absolve the petitioner from the duty to disclose all primary facts before the Assessing Officer.
It to be settled position of law that right of appeal is neither an absolute nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principle of which must be followed in judicial and quasi-judicial adjudication. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the condition in the grant. If a statute gives right to appeal upon certain conditions it is upon fulfilment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in and exercisable by the appellant.
It is observed that the amount in question payable by BAH India to the USA entity was not paid during the year under consideration and there is no dispute about the same. The said amount payable to the USA entity has been brought to tax in India in its hands by the Revenue authorities as fees for technical services. As per the relevant provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between India and the USA
Tribunal in the penalty proceedings has by its order, independent of the findings in quantum proceedings, has reached a conclusion that various incriminating documents found during search established that the appellant’s were manipulating its accounts so as to reduce its profits. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposable and has been rightly imposed by the authorities under the Act.
It is seen from the facts that the assessee does not claim its expenditure as replacement of whole machinery or repairing of machinery as such. The assessee contended that such expenditure incurred in replacing the rolls has not in any manner increased the production capacity. On the other hand, it maintained the production capacity, as such, the rolls used removed the friction between the two machines in its process.
The Revenue which is in Appeal before the Court, is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT dated 13.03.2009 in ITA-2280/Del/2005. It urges the following substantial question of law for determination by this Court
