The facts and which are taken from the director’s report itself would indicate that the Assessee had disclosed what was relevant and necessary for the purpose of making assessment. The Assessee did not hold back any document nor failed to supply any information in addition to the explanation given by it in writing concerning the said management fees expenses. In the circumstances, this is a clear case of change of opinion and based on which, the reassessment is proposed.
Hon’ble High Court held that making of an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when Assessee has made full disclosure of relevant Facts and of Claim Made as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158.
The Petitioner Company is conducting a business of providing preprinted Sodexo Meal Vouchers (For short “the said Vouchers”). The case made out in the Petitions is that the Petitioner Company enters into a contract with its customers for issuing the said vouchers.
The assessee, a joint venture company, was awarded a project work. However the assessee did not execute the contract and the said work was done by one of its constituents namely SMS Infrastructure Limited (‘SIL’).
A plain reading of Section 10(23C) makes it clear that the legislature has categorised for deduction income of those institutions which ‘exist solely’ for philanthropic purpose with a further stipulation that they would exist ‘not for the purpose of profit’.
If the returns are furnished and submitted, then, they deserve to be scrutinised. If they should be scrutinised expeditiously and early and equally the claims for refund in pursuance thereof, then, the only direction that we issue is that the Respondents process such cases and as expeditiously as possible.
The grievance of the Revenue with regard to the impugned order so far as change of opinion is concerned, is that the Assessing Officer had acted upon on audit objection which has been received by him. Thus, there was tangible material available for issuing notice for reopening of the assessment.
In a recent ruling that will have a bearing on the buyback activities, the Bombay High Court held that the premium paid for buyback of shares shall be tax deductible as business expenditure. (CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd).
The question sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the deduction under section 80O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short). The Tribunal has considered this question taking into account the calculations made by the Assessing Officer
The issue which falls for our consideration is whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause so as to become entitled for condonation of delay of five years in preferring the appeal against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Tribunal.
