Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (7) TMI 1172 - HC - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen an assessment based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision?
2. Whether profits from service charges are includible in the profits of business for the purposes of Section 80HH, 80I, and 80IA?
3. Whether explanation "baa" to Section 80HHC is applicable for tyre retreading charges?
4. Whether the Assessing Officer is entitled to restrict the depreciation of the actual cost by invoking Section 43(1)(3)?
5. Whether the excise duty and sales tax form part of the turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC?
6. Whether the net amount or the other income has to be excluded from the profits of business for the purpose of Section 80HHC?

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment Based on Subsequent Supreme Court Decision:
The primary issue addressed was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) is empowered to reopen an assessment based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision. The court observed that the AO did not disclose the reasons for reopening, which is a fundamental requirement under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the reopening was not justified as it was based on a decision (Madurai Pandian Engineering Corporation Ltd.) that was rendered after the original assessment period. The court agreed, stating that the reopening was a mere change of opinion and not based on any tangible material indicating that income had escaped assessment. The court cited several precedents, including CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which established that mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening an assessment. Therefore, the reopening proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction.

2. Inclusion of Service Charges in Profits for Sections 80HH, 80I, and 80IA:
The second issue was whether profits from service charges are includible in the profits of business for the purposes of Sections 80HH, 80I, and 80IA. Since the Tribunal annulled the reassessment proceedings, it did not delve into this issue. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, leaving this question open as it was contingent on the validity of the reopening.

3. Applicability of Explanation "baa" to Section 80HHC for Tyre Retreading Charges:
The third issue concerned whether explanation "baa" to Section 80HHC applies to tyre retreading charges. Similar to the second issue, the Tribunal did not address this due to the annulment of the reassessment proceedings. The court left this question open as well.

4. Restriction of Depreciation by Invoking Section 43(1)(3):
The fourth issue was whether the AO is entitled to restrict the depreciation of the actual cost by invoking Section 43(1)(3). This issue was also not addressed by the Tribunal due to the annulment of the reassessment proceedings, and the court left this question open.

5. Inclusion of Excise Duty and Sales Tax in Turnover for Section 80HHC Deduction:
The fifth issue was whether excise duty and sales tax form part of the turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC. As with the previous issues, the Tribunal did not address this due to the annulment of the reassessment proceedings, and the court left this question open.

6. Exclusion of Net Amount or Other Income from Profits for Section 80HHC:
The final issue was whether the net amount or other income should be excluded from the profits of business for the purpose of Section 80HHC. The Tribunal did not address this issue due to the annulment of the reassessment proceedings, and the court left this question open.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the reopening of the assessments was without jurisdiction as it was based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision, which constituted a mere change of opinion. Consequently, the other substantial questions of law were left open, and all the tax cases (appeals) filed by the Revenue were dismissed without costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates