8. Having carefully examined the entire evidences available on the record in the light of the oral submissions of the parties, with reference to the provisions of law and the precedents relied before us and after giving anxious thought, in the light of the plain words used in section 263 of the Act and in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT
Nicholas Applegate South East Asia Fund Limited Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) – The question of application of section 292B cannot be prejudged by finding that return, notice, etc. is not as per the requirement of the statute and is/are invalid; the finding that the return or notice etc. is invalid or to what extent it is invalid is unnecessary and counter productive; if in substance and in effect return, notice or assessment is in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of the Act, the mistake defect or omission is to be ignored as per the underlining philosophy of section 292B.
9.1 From plain reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is ` erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power.
Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully in the light of the materials and the case laws referred to. The question for our consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of payment made by the assessee to its parent company by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred by the. parent company in connection with the activities carried on by the assessee.
There is a difference between dismissal of a Special Leave Petition and dismissal of an Appeal. While the dismissal of a SLP does not result in merger of the judgment of the High Court with that of the Supreme Court and there is no affirmation, the dismissal of an Appeal results in an affirmation and merger of the order of the High Court into that of the Supreme Court.
Where the assessee had its own funds as well as borrowed funds and it advanced funds to its sister concerns for allegedly non-business purposes and the question arose whether the AO was justified in disallowing the interest on the borrowed funds on the ground that they had been used for non-business purposes, HELD: Where an assessee has his own funds as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that t
(i) S. 149, which imposes the limitation period, requires the notice to be “issued” but not “served” within the limitation period. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment;
2. This civil appeal filed by the assessee is directed against judgment and order dated 22.9.2006 in ITA No. 164/04 by the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment, confirming the decision of the Tribunal, the High Court has held that the appellant (assessee) is not entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“1961 Act” for short) in respect of two separate transactions
(ii) where proper enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer and he has followed the principles of natural justice, the order passed by him cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue simply because the ld. Commissioner does not agree with him and he is of the view that addition of a higher amount should have been made;
13.5 That in the case of running contracts, no income, profits or gains can in fact be computed unless the contract is completed and if the contract is completed in a period of more than a year, the crucial time for calculating the income, profits and gains arrives only when the entire contract is completed in other words, argument was that the only method by which the gains or profits of the assessee could be determined was to wait until
