The petitioner by letter dated 17th November, 2011 had disclosed a foreign bank account which existed with the HSBC Private Bank, Geneva, Switzerland to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II). The peak amount lying in the said account during the year ending 31st March, 2007 was around US$ 1.3 million.
Whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Om Prakash Khaitan held that In the absence of change in system of accounting consistently followed by the assessee and accepted by the department, the department cannot take different stand for the subsequent years.
Delhi High Court in the case of Maithon Power Ltd. vs. CIT held that The expenditure incurred to set up operations forms the part of capital work in progress and thus, the subsequent reimbursement of any part thereof would be a capital receipt which will get reduced from the amount capitalized under the capital WIP.
In the case of CIT vs M/s.Motherson Auto P. Ltd, Delhi High Court held that the monopoly enjoyed by the assessee in respect of the product manufactured, the continuous functioning, the large volume of orders at hand when the collaboration transaction took place, were sufficient basis for valuation.
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the Iraqi Government’s inability to pay due to sanctions imposed by it and the subsequent Central Government’s negotiating an arrangement for its payment through bonds that were to mature in future with interest did not in any way alter their character
In the present case the Hon’ble High court while deciding two vital issues held that the estoppels does not apply against a statute and Mere expansion of the Existing Units can’t be termed as a separate undertaking in order to claim deductions under section 10A.
Even though the excise duty was for manufacturing activity that occurred earlier, the liability to pay such additional duty did not exist in the previous years and as a result, could not have been claimed by the assessee as expenditure in the concerned previous years.
In the present facts of the case the Hon’ble High Court held that as the assessee have not taken substantial risks and was a mediator in the international transactions. Hence, Transactional Net Margin Method is a right method instead of Profit Split method.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High court held that the proceedings of re-assessment could be made if full and true facts have not been disclosed earlier. Also, it was held that section 68 could be invoked if the genuineness of parties are not proved.
