9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 98 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - denial of the tax-holiday benefit - CIT holding a conviction that as per the proviso to Sec. 92C(4), the suo motto addition made by the assessee towards deemed mark-up having regard to the ALP of the international transactions would not qualify for deductions u/ss. 10A and 10B of the Act? - HELD THAT - We are unable to comprehend as to how the view of the A.O as regards allowing of the assessee s claim for deductions u/ss. 10A and 10B of the Act, which as observed by us hereinabove is found to be in conformity with the view taken in the case of CIT Vs. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. 2014 (6) TMI 1007 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT could be held to be erroneous. In fact, we find that the aforesaid order of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. (supra),was available on the date when the assessment was framed by the A.O, vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13), dated 27.02.2015. At this stage, we may also observe that no judgment of any High Court taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice by the ld. D.R. Be that as it may, we hold strong conviction that as the implicit view of the A.O while allowing the assessee s claim for deduction u/ss. 10A and 10B of the Act, cannot be held to be erroneous , therefore, the CIT was divested of exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Withdrawal of deductions under Sections 10A and 10B of the Income Tax Act. 3. Non-consideration of the decision in CIT v. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) had the legal authority to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction because the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT's jurisdiction was questioned on the grounds that the assessment order was passed pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and thus, was with valid jurisdiction. 2. Withdrawal of Deductions under Sections 10A and 10B of the Income Tax Act The CIT directed the AO to withdraw the deductions claimed by the assessee under Sections 10A and 10B. The CIT observed that the deductions were allowed without adjusting the losses of the ineligible undertakings, which was contrary to the provisions of the Act. The CIT held that the inclusion of deemed mark-ups for computing the deductions under Sections 10A and 10B was irregular. The assessee contended that the deductions were rightly allowed and supported by judicial precedents, including the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. 3. Non-consideration of the Decision in CIT v. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. The assessee argued that the CIT failed to consider the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd., which supported the assessee's claim for deductions under Sections 10A and 10B. The CIT's order did not reference this judicial precedent, which was crucial to the assessee's case. The Tribunal noted that the view taken by the AO was in conformity with the decision of the Karnataka High Court, and thus, could not be deemed erroneous. 4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act The CIT directed the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee contended that the position adopted was in full conformity with the decision in CIT v. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. and that no inaccurate particulars of income were furnished. The Tribunal found that the CIT's direction for penalty proceedings was not justified given the conformity of the assessee's position with judicial precedents. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT under Section 263, restoring the assessment orders passed by the AO for both assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12. The Tribunal held that the CIT had grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 and that the AO's view was supported by judicial precedents, including the decision in CIT v. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the directions for initiating penalty proceedings were also quashed.
|
