9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard and after referring to the various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court observed that mere change of opinion cannot be the basis of reopening the assessment. In the said case also, the Assessing Officer had raised the query with regard to allocation of expenditure. The petitioner gave its reply. The Assessing Officer accepted the reply and assessment order was passed. Thereafter, notice for reopening the assessment was issued. In the present case the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order, had raised queries precisely with regard to the interest and royalty being shown as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply and thereafter passed assessment order. Notice u/s 148 is issued mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not allowable as revenue expenditure. 3. Mr. Pardiwala, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the interest capitalized and the royalty was allowed as revenue expenditure for the previous assessment years i.e. Assessment Years 1993-94 and 2001-02. For the instant year i.e. A.Y. 2002-03 after the return was filed, queries were raised by the Assessing Officer, seeking explanation from the petitioner with regard its claim of interest and also royalty as a revenue expenditure. The petitioner replied to the same. The Assessing Officer was convinced with the said reply and passed the assessment order accepting the stand of the petitioner. After about two years, the impugned notice has been issued for reopenin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner had entered into Foreign Technology Collaboration Agreement with Cabot Corporation, USA for modernization of carbon black plant under energy conservation scheme, to improve its performance. The said technology is acquired under the Foreign Technology Collaboration Agreement and acquiring such technology the petitioner was required to pay only royalty at the percentage of sales. The said royalty amount was wrongly allowed as revenue expenditure. In fact, the royalty payment was capital expenditure. In the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the said amounts have been wrongly allowed as revenue expenditure. As such, a reasonable belief was made out by the Assessing Officer gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd this Court observed that mere change of opinion cannot be the basis of reopening the assessment. In the said case also, the Assessing Officer had raised the query with regard to allocation of expenditure. The petitioner gave its reply. The Assessing Officer accepted the reply and assessment order was passed. Thereafter, notice for reopening the assessment was issued. 9. In the present case the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order, had raised queries precisely with regard to the interest and royalty being shown as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply and thereafter passed assessment order. Notice u/s 148 is issued merely because another Assessing Officer has different opinion. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
