Order can be revised if and only if the twin conditions, viz., one that the order is erroneous and two – that to that extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue co-exist.
The Honourable Madras High Court in CIT Vs Western Agencies Madras Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 301 held that if a company lakes over the business of the firm by taking over assets and liabilities of the firm, then the company cannot be assessed in respect of the income of the period prior to dissolution of the firm.
Whether, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing officer had to record his reasons and based on those reasons form his opinion that the income has escaped assessment by relying on two judgments of this Hon’ble Court in 133 JTJ? 199 and 155 ITR 748 before reopening assessments when Section 147
In the instant case, learned counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to demonstrate or satisfy us that due to the change of accounting method adopted by the respondent/assessee , which is permissible in law as per the ratio laid down in (i) CIT v. Matchwell Electricals (I.) Ltd. (2003)263 ITR 227 (Bom) and (ii) Hela Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 129 (Cal), the Revenue suffered any loss or such a change of methodology attracts tax evasion. Concededly, there is no finding to that effect in the assessment order or in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of A.Y.S. Paisutha Nadar v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 1041 (Mad.) had held that section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922 [section 30(a)(ii) of 1961 Act.] relating to expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee’s business, clearly indicated that the expenditure should relate to a business which is already in existence and not one that is to come into existence in the future. Hence the expenditure incurred on modifications and renovations of the building cannot be treated to have been incurred during the course of business wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act.
However, in view of the fact that the agreement has been accepted as genuine in the hands of one of the parties and economic consequences have also occurred because the assignee has made the payment to the Government, the transaction is necessarily be treated as genuine one, and for this reason,
Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT Vs United Motors (I) Ltd. (2009-TIOL-693-ITAT-MUM) has held that income from transfer of a leased premises without transferring its own business amounts to extinguishment of the taxpayer’s right in the capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income-tax-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
We are of the view that the case of the applicant neatly fits into Section 44BB and all the ingredients of that section are satisfied. To attract the first part of section 44BB, the non-resident must be (a) engaged in the business of providing services or facilities; (b) such provision of services/facilities must be ‘in connection with’ the prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils.
Provision of Section 143 (2) of Income Act viz-aviz section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 36(1) both would be harmonized to give purposeful meaning to both the statutory provisions, as one extends benefit to the respondent-assessee of deduction for their debt or part thereof becoming bad and other authorizes Assessing Officer to see that provision of Income Tax Act are not flouted by any means.
Section 70(3) of the Act postulates that for any assessment year where there is a loss in respect of long term capital asset, the asscssee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against the income, if any fas arrived at under a similar computation) made for the assessment year.
