9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), Koramangala Bengaluru are quoted below for ready reference:- "Mphasis Ltd., Bengaluru ("ML"/"Payer Company") is engaged in the business of providing information technology solutions and services specifically tailored to meet the requirements of industries such as Financial Services, Retail, Logistics & Transportation and Technology. The Company enters into contracts for software development work with customers outside India and engages services of its overseas group companies i.e. Associated enterprises ("AEs") for the onsite portion of software development work. In respect of the offshore portion, the Assessee Company executes the same in India whereas the onsite portion is the respons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms paid by ML to the AEs are therefore chargeable to tax under the Act. The assessee is also one of the AE of the Payer company and was in receipt of FTS during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09. Such payments amounts to Rs. 2,23,64,32,041/ -. Though the payee was under obligation to file return and pay taxes as the income accrued or arised in India the same has not been done. Therefore I have a reason to believe that due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee there is an escapement of income and the case is a fit case to invoke the provisions of sec.147. Issue notice U/s.148." 3. The contentions raised by Mr. Annamalai. S, learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee for ass ailing such reassessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NCOME TAX & ANR. in S.L.P.(Civil) No.13512/2012 , decided on 9.2.2016. (iii) He submitted that the Assessing Authority in Bengaluru had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, as the petitioner does not have any Permanent Establishment (P.E.) in India and therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all these objections have been raised before the Respondent-Assessing Authority and he has not yet decided the same and proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 are still pending, but since the very initiation of proceedings is bad in law and without jurisdiction, the same deserve to be quashed by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner- asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of the assessee. The said reasons cannot be said to be irrelevant or non-germane for the formation o f a reasonable belief about escapement of income as required under Section 147/148 of the Act or initiation of such proceedings for bringing to the tax the income which has escaped assessment. 6. Therefore, this Court cannot pre-judge as to how the objections of the assessee in this regard will be met by the Respondent-Assessing Authority. Since, admittedly, the proceedings are pending as of now, no pronouncement with regard to merit of such objections can be made at this stage. 7. The other objections raised by learned counsel f or the petitioner assessee are also peripheral in nature and do not want to go to the root of the matter to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
