Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on acquisition of marketing and technical knowhow is revenue in nature as the benefit would accrue over a period of time and treatment in books of account is not relevant
Mere receipt of information from any source would not by itself tantamount to reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case the Assessing Officer prima facie has not done the bare necessary/rudimentary enquiry into the material received before he concludes that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
In the light of the above factual position and the two Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is conceded equally by the Department that their stand, as contained in the impugned letter, is unsustainable in law. The matter is covered by the said two Judgments. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 821999. We direct that the declaration of the petitioners shall now be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law.
This Reference under Section 256(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) seeks our opinion on two substantial questions of law as framed by it. However, Mr. Rattesar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant assessee very fairly states that he is not in a possession of evidence to show that the Reference has been served upon the Revenue.
Section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings.
Requirement of Section 153C of the Act cannot be ignored at the alter of suspicion. The Revenue has to strictly comply with Section 153C of the Act. We are of the view that non satisfaction of the condition precedent viz. the seized document must belong to the respondent – assessee is a jurisdictional issue and non satisfaction thereof would make the entire proceedings taken thereunder null and void.
Initially we had observed that the Commissioner and his officials are playing a blame game. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates.
This Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) was required to answer the question whether for the purpose of computing total world income of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, the income accruing in Uganda has to be reduced by the tax paid to the Uganda Government in respect of such income? The Court while answering the question in the negative observed that it is not aware of any commercial principle / practice which lays down that the tax paid by one on one’s income is allowed as a deduction in determining the income for the purposes of taxation.
We also note that the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Keihin Panalfa Ltd. (ITA No.11 of 2015) decided on 9th September, 2015 has while dealing with transfer pricing adjustment in the absence of segmental accounts held that adjustments have to be restricted only to transactions with Associated Enterprises. It further held that whereseparate accounts are not available, then proportionate adjustments to be made only in respect of the international transactions with Associated Enterprises.
This petition challenges notice dated 31st March, 2016 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned notice seeks to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10. The regular assessment proceedings were completed on 28th December, 2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act.
