9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 449 - AT - Income TaxDisregarding the claim made during the course of assessment proceedings - assessee failed to file revised return u/s. 139(5) of the Act in support of its claim, hence the claim made by the assessee cannot be allowed - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee did not claim the said deduction in original return filed on 28.11.2015 and failed to file the revised return u/s. 139(5) of the Act in support of its claim and claim of the assessee was disallowed by the ld. DCIT (International Taxation) by following the judgement in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT - After perusing the ld. co-ordinate bench's order, while deciding the similar issue in the case of Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. 2018 (1) TMI 838 - ITAT KOLKATA held that while the assessee in the return of income did not make any claim in respect of carbon credit not taxable but such claim was made only in the assessment proceedings before the AO and such claim of the assessee has been allowed by the ld. co-ordinate bench. We followed the view taken by the co-ordinate bench and allow the claim of the assessee and directed the AO to accept the revised claim made by the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Issues:
1. Taxability of amount received by the appellant from Philips India Limited and Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited pursuant to Global Service Unit Agreement. 2. Admissibility of additional claim made by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. 3. Consideration of facts and circumstances to determine taxability. 4. Requirement of filing revised return under section 139(5) of the Act to support a claim. Issue 1: Taxability of Amount Received The appellant contested the taxability of the amount received from Philips India Limited and Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited under the Global Service Unit Agreement (GSU). The appellant argued that the services provided did not "make available" technical knowledge or skills to PIL and Preethi. The appellant challenged the decision of the Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel, claiming that the amount in question should not be taxable in India based on the nature of services provided. Issue 2: Admissibility of Additional Claim The appellant also raised concerns regarding the admissibility of an additional claim made during the assessment proceedings. The appellant argued that despite the Assessing Officer accepting the remand report, the additional claim was not admitted, leading to the erroneous conclusion that the amount received was taxable in India. The appellant sought direction for the Assessing Officer to accept the additional claim made during the assessment proceedings. Issue 3: Consideration of Facts and Circumstances During the hearing, the appellant's representative highlighted that the authorities below had mechanically dismissed the appellant's claim without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant referenced a similar case where relief was granted to the assessee by accepting a revised claim even after the time limit for filing a revised return under section 139(5) had expired. The appellant argued for a thorough consideration of the case's specifics to determine the taxability of the amount received. Issue 4: Requirement of Filing Revised Return The Assessing Officer disallowed the appellant's claim as it was not made in the original return filed and no revised return was submitted under section 139(5) of the Act to support the claim. However, the appellant relied on a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case to argue that the claim made during the assessment proceedings should be allowed, even without filing a revised return. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench and directed the Assessing Officer to accept the revised claim made by the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the considerations of taxability, admissibility of claims, and the requirement of filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act. The decision emphasized the need to assess each case's specifics and consider relevant legal precedents to determine the tax implications accurately.
|
