The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the reopening of the assessments was prompted by the opinion which the respondent formed while framing the assessment for assessment year 2007-08 that the licence fee payment was not an allowable deduction, cannot be accepted because, as we have observed earlier though the genesis of the issue can be traced to the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08, the reasons recorded show that the assessing officer took proceedings under Section 147 on the ground that the licence agreement was not filed by the petitioner in the original assessment proceedings. When there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to furnish the primary facts, it is futile to examine the question whether the re-assessment was prompted by a change of opinion based on the view which the assessing officer took in subsequent assessment proceedings.
Assessment Officer in its order dated 28th January, 2005 did not make provision for disallowance of expenditure in terms of Section 14A of the I.T. Act. The assessee has paid interest of Rs.4,49,02,775/- out of which only a sum of Rs.1,33,51,132/- was shown to be relatable to the non-taxable income. The assessee did not maintain any separate accounts for the purpose of the exempt income. The assessee did not give one to one co-relation between the funds available and the funds deployed.
Section 43B of the Act is applicable only in respect of any amount paid as interest to a scheduled bank. A scheduled bank as defined in Explanation 4 to Section 43B of the Act would have the same meaning as contained in the Explanation to Section 11(5) (iii) of the Act.
In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1964) 53 ITR 261, It was held that the compensation received for loss of an asset of enduring value would be regarded as capital receipt.
By virtue of Rule 22A of Part I KSR, which rules have been formulated by the State Government in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is obligatory on the part of any State Government employee to have applied for and obtained coverage in respect of life, by subscribing to a Policy, in the official branch of the State Life Insurance and shall continue to subscribe the same till he ceased from the ‘service’. The said provision itself makes it clear that there is a reciprocal statutory duty upon the State Insurance Department, to provide Policy to such State Government employees and this statutory obligation cannot be stated as a ‘taxable service’ provided to any individual or establishment or class of such persons.
Going by the admitted facts herein, as noticed in the assessment order that the assessee was also subjected to search on 19.1.1996 and the case of the assessee falling under Section 158BC, the relevant provision for limitation would be only as per Section 158BE(1)(a). That being the case, the file noting has no significance for the purpose of working out the limitation. Thus, on the search conducted on 19.1.1996 the notice of assessment was issued on 20.9.1996.
The retrospective clarificatory amendments (vide the Finance Act, 2012) do not seek to override the DTAA. In case of a conflict between the domestic law and the DTAA, DTAA will prevail, in terms of Section 90 of the Act.
Statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is evidence but its reliability depends upon the facts of the case and particularly surrounding circumstances. Drawing inference from the facts is a question of law. Here in this case, all the authorities below have merely reached to the conclusion of one conclusion merely on the basis of assumption resulting into fastening of the liability upon the assessee.
On facts, it is seen that by Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner was informed that there are certain points to be clarified in connection with the returns filed by them. Accordingly, they were required to attend the office of the assessing officer with documents, accounts and other evidence to support the return filed.
The acknowledgement and/or acceptance of the admitted amount, received by the petitioner towards the full and final settlement concludes the issue for the purpose of winding up petition. Therefore, having once settled the matter, the averment and/or allegations given of coercion and or undue influence just cannot be gone into the Company Petition.
