9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge the common order dated 31st October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order dated 31st October, 2014 disposes of the three appeals filed by the three Respondents, all in respect of Assessment Year 2006-07. 2 In all the three Appeals, the Revenue has raised the following common question of law, for our consideration: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 without examining the case on its merit?" 3 All the three Respondents are Foreign Institutional Investor for purpose of Section 115AD of the Act. All of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contracting state) in a company which is resident of a contracting state may be taxed in that state provided to the condition that the person is a taxable until under the taxation of laws in force in the state of its residence. In the present case, the assessee registered as 'FUND' for dealing in Indian stock market with SEBI and also taken PAN for taxation in India in the status of AOP (Trust) whose beneficiaries are indeterminate. From the above facts, it is clear that in order to avail the benefit under the provisions of the DTAA that the AOP(Trust) should be a tax resident of Denmark and also liable to tax as AOP under the taxation laws in force in Denmark. In case, the Fund is not taxable unit under the taxation l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties in Denmark. Therefore, the Assessing Officer assessed each of the three Respondents to tax on the capital gains earned by them for the subject Assessment Year. 6 Being aggrieved each of the Respondents carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By three separate orders (one in respect of each Respondent), CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the three RespondentAssessee both on the issue of reopening notice as well as on the merit of the reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. 7 On further appeal by each of the three Respondents, the Tribunal by a common order allowed the three appeals by, inter alia, holding that the reasons recorded in support of reopening notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... improve upon or change the reasons recorded. This Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v/s. R. B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 has reiterated the above principle by observing that: " .... .... .... .... ..... the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitutions or deletion is permissible. NO additions can be made to those reasons. No inferences can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. .... .... .... .... .... The reasons should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from vagueness. .... .... .... .... .... The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submissions.... .... ...." Therefore, the reasons for reopening not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
