Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Ltd., a non resident company Mauritian entity. Vodafone Holding is AE (Associate Enterprise) of Vodafone India for the purpose of transfer pricing provisions under chapter X of Income Tax Act 1961. Vodafone india is engaged in providing service in relation to Telecommunication in india.
As far as question No.5 is concerned, we find the factual situation the backdrop of which this question is raised to be most unfortunate, disturbing and dangerous to say the least. The Tribunal as a matter of routine goes on consolidating appeals.
Madhukar B. Thakoor vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)- Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Presiding Officer of the Courts and Tribunals from adversely commenting and remarking on the conduct of parties or their representatives or pleaders.
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.
