Order can be revised if and only if the twin conditions, viz., one that the order is erroneous and two – that to that extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue co-exist.
The Honourable Madras High Court in CIT Vs Western Agencies Madras Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 301 held that if a company lakes over the business of the firm by taking over assets and liabilities of the firm, then the company cannot be assessed in respect of the income of the period prior to dissolution of the firm.
Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of A.Y.S. Paisutha Nadar v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 1041 (Mad.) had held that section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922 [section 30(a)(ii) of 1961 Act.] relating to expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee’s business, clearly indicated that the expenditure should relate to a business which is already in existence and not one that is to come into existence in the future. Hence the expenditure incurred on modifications and renovations of the building cannot be treated to have been incurred during the course of business wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act.
However, in view of the fact that the agreement has been accepted as genuine in the hands of one of the parties and economic consequences have also occurred because the assignee has made the payment to the Government, the transaction is necessarily be treated as genuine one, and for this reason,
The Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of Oracle India (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009-TIOL-540-ITAT-DEL) (the taxpayer) held that section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) overrides the provisions relating to computation of business income only and thus in relation to international transactions, the specific provisions embodied in Chapter X (section 92 – 92F) shall override the general provisions embodied in section 40A of the Act. Hence, once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepts the arm’s length character of any international transaction, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not make an adjustment in relation to that transaction under section 40A(2) of the Act.
Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of JCIT v. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. (2009-TIOL-712-ITAT-MUM) has held that the foreign company having Permanent Establishment (PE) in India cannot be taxed at the rate applicable to domestic company in view of insertion of Explanation 1 to section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Finance Act 2001 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962. Accordingly, it will have to pay tax at the rate prescribed in the Finance Act (i.e. at higher rate) even if a taxpayer is covered by the provisions of the India-Mauritius tax treaty (the tax treaty).
Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT Vs United Motors (I) Ltd. (2009-TIOL-693-ITAT-MUM) has held that income from transfer of a leased premises without transferring its own business amounts to extinguishment of the taxpayer’s right in the capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income-tax-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Section 70(3) of the Act postulates that for any assessment year where there is a loss in respect of long term capital asset, the asscssee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against the income, if any fas arrived at under a similar computation) made for the assessment year.
It is thus clear that the entire assessment order was not set aside to enable the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment; the order passed by the first appellate authority was only to enable to the Assessing Officer to vary the assessment originally made and not to take a reiook at all the issues which were considered in the original assessment order. Paragraph-2 of Circular No.334 is relevant in this context and hence reproduced for immediate reference:
Coming to the general proposition regarding condonation of delay, the learned counsel relied on a number of cases, which have already been summarized. In the case of Shakuntala Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that liberal construction should be placed on the words “sufficient cause” provided that no negligence,
