9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment for software media pack/master copy, were not income in the hands of the Assessee herein. On the basis of the above order of the DRP, the final assessment order for AY 2006-2007 in the case of OIPL was passed on 30th November, 2013. This was followed in 2007-08 where again the draft assessment order of the AO of OIPL was not concurred with by the DRP. The DRP’s order dated 29th August, 2014 held that the in respect of both the issues no income resulted in the hands of the Assessee herein. This order was acted upon and the final assessment order was passed by the AO on 30th October, 2014. With the very basis of the reopening of the assessment in the present case having been eroded, the Court hereby sets aside the impugned notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diary in India i.e. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. (OIPL) and (ii) interest on delayed payment of royalty. In view of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) part relief was granted to the Assessee in the final assessment order passed by the AO on 27th September 2011. Later a rectification order was passed under Section 154 of the Act on 7th March, 2014 rectifying the assessed income as ₹ 639,52,51,929/-. Aggrieved by the additions made in the final assessment order, the Assessee filed appeals before the ITAT. 4. On 26th March 2014, notice under Section 148 was issued to the Assessee by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Circle 2(1) International Taxation, New Delhi (hereafter the AO) seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... draft assessment order passed by the AO of the OIPL which formed the basis for triggering of the notice to the Assessee herein under Section 148 of the Act stood reversed by the DRP by its order dated 29th August, 2014 for AY 2007-2008 in the case of OIPL. Therefore, a live nexus could not be established between the material available and the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The reopening was only based on the above 'borrowed satisfaction' of the AO of OIPL which in any event ceased to exist. 9. However, in the present case, on 23rd March 2015, the AO disposed of the objections holding them to be devoid of merits. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed. 10. It is pointed out by Mr Syali, learned Senior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 29th August, 2014 disagreed with the draft assessment order of the AO of OIPL for the very same AY 2007-2008. 13. The Court finds that the order passed by the AO on 23rd March, 2015 disposing of the objections of the Assessee has failed to deal with the above issue. As rightly pointed out by the Assessee even for AY 2006-2007, the DRP by order dated 16th August 2013, disagreed with the draft assessment order dated 2nd November, 2012 of the AO of OIPL wherein identical additions were suggested. The DRP held that the said two items viz. (i) incoming shared service charges and (ii) alleged excess payment for software media pack/master copy, were not income in the hands of the Assessee herein. On the basis of the above order of the DRP, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
