9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of diverted profits to a related company for tax avoidance and the subsequent deletion of such addition by the CIT(A) and confirmation by the Tribunal for assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99. Assessment Year 1995-96: The Assessing Officer found that the assessee was diverting profits through its related company to avoid tax liability. The assessee had purchased chemicals at a low price and sold them to the related company at a meager profit, which then sold them at a higher price in the market. An addition was made to the total income on account of diverted profits. Similar additions were made in other assessment years. CIT(A) Order: The CIT(A) allowed the appeals, stating that the business operation style is the prerogative of the businessman, and the Income Tax Department cannot dictate how to run the business. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the transactions were sham or that goods were sold at a concessional rate. The CIT(A) held that no case of profit diversion was established. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal considered the assessee as a marginal player in the market, earning a reasonable profit margin without additional services. It noted that the related company manufactured only a portion of the products it sold, requiring purchases from the open market. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order, stating that the transactions did not indicate profit diversion. Revenue's Challenge: The Revenue contended that the transactions between the assessee and the related company were contrived to distribute profits, leading to reduced tax liability. Despite evidence presented by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A) order. The Revenue argued that the question of law proposed in the appeals required consideration by the Court. Court's Decision: After reviewing the orders of the authorities, the Court found that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal extensively analyzed the issue. The CIT(A) noted the increase in income of the related company over the years, and the purchases made by the assessee were not covered under relevant tax provisions. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to suggest profit diversion. As both authorities had concurrent findings based on facts and evidence, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed all the tax appeals.
|
