Sub-rule (3) of rule 18DA itself provides the consequence of violation of sub-rule (2). As per sub-rule (3), if at any stage it is found that any provisions of the Act or the rules have been violated, the prescribed authority specified may withdraw the approval so granted. Therefore, if there is a violation of sub-rule (2), the prescribed authority has to take action against the assessee by withdrawing the approval.
It is a settled law that the powers of the Commissioner of Income Tax is co-terminus with that of Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the particular enquiry that was not made by the Assessing Officer which was necessary in the facts of the case, should have been done by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A).
Interra Information Technologies (India) Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a 100% subsidiary of Interra IT Inc., a US based company. Interra IT Inc. enters into contract with customers and subcontracts a part/whole of the work to Interra India.
As per proviso attached to the sub-rule (5) of Rule 11AA of the Rules, it is a statutory requirement that no order of rejection of application u/s 80G(5) of the Act shall be passed without giving the institution, trust or fund an opportunity of being heard.
As is apparent from the aforesaid objects, society has been created for providing medical relief to the needy and poor. The ld. AR contended before us that 1st proviso to amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f., 01.04.2009 was not applicable in their case, the object of the society being to provide medical relief.
Admittedly, the return was processed u/s 143(1), as per the assessment order, on 15.05.2002 and the notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2008. Therefore, as per section 151, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain the sanction of Joint Commissioner of Income tax as four years had lapsed from the end of relevant assessment year.
What is to be seen in the instant case, is whether the claim for deduction of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act, made by the assessee was bona-fide and whether all the material facts relevant thereto have been furnished and once it is so established, the assessee cannot be held liable for concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The assessee made a claim for working capital adjustment before the TPO. The TPO made a detailed analysis exhibiting how such an adjustment is to be granted. According to the assessee, the TPO made reference to Rule 10B(3) demonstrating comparability adjustment. On the strength of this Rule, the TPO opined that Indian transfer pricing provisions prescribed only reasonable accurate adjustment. He also pointed out that thereafter the TPO made reference to OECD Commentary and also the judicial precedents on comparability adjustment.
The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious, unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion.
Assessee has duly disclosed the gifts and there was no concealment in this regard. Only the assessee has failed to produce the alleged donor that the penalty has been imposed. I further find that section 271(1(c) of the Act postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.
