9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stead of Delhi High court Held that:- The said order dated 21.12.2010 would not confer jurisdiction on this Court as the assessment order was passed in December, 2008 and the CIT(A), New Delhi, decided the appeal on 24.02.2010. Once the respondent-assessee was being assessed by the ITO, Ward-14(1), New Delhi who had territorial jurisdiction over the assessee respondent, this Court would have no jurisdiction to hear the present appeal filed u/s 260-A. A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions makes it evident that the DG or Chief CIT or CIT is empowered to transfer any case from one or more A.O. subordinate to him to any other A.O. It also deals with the procedure when the case is transferred from one A.O. subordinate to a DG or Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 37(1) ignoring that: i. The expenditure incurred by the assessee on R&D was for creating intangible assets (new drugs and processes) with a view to produce benefit for several years and such expenditure was clearly capital in nature. ii. Originally the assessee had rightly categorized these expenditure in books so as to avail the benefit of Section 35(2AB) for weighted deduction and had changed the category as revenue expenditure, as an afterthought in the revised return, even though the nature of expenditure incurred remained same." 3. A perusal of the paper-book of the present appeal shows that the assessment order dated 26.12.2008, under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), New Delhi. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hear the present appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Act. 7. The matter is no longer res integra. In ITA No.44 of 2005 titled. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd. decided on 03.10.2007, where the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore, the Revenue in that case, had sought to justify the filing of the appeal in this Court on the ground that the assessee respondent had requested for transfer of the case from Bangalore to Gurgaon on 02.01.2002 and the case was transferred from Bangalore to Gurgaon on 20.05.2005 under Section 127 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court, while repelling the aforesaid contention had noticed as under: "The decision of the High Courts are binding o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxxx A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions makes it evident that the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer. It also deals with the procedure when the case is transferred from one Assessing Officer subordinate to a Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to an Assessing Officer who is not subordinate to the same Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The aforementioned situation and the definition of expression 'case' in relation to jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer is quite understandable but it has got nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
