9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the limitation issue. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 alone is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order on the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening - W.P.No.32616 of 2018 And W.M.P.No.37819 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2019 - Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu For the Petitioner : Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar For the Respondent : Mrs.Hema Mualikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce under section 14A. As against the addition and disallowance made in the draft assessment order, the petitioner filed their objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. By order dated 22.12.2015, the Dispute Resolution Panel directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to delete the upward adjustment in respect of old corporate guarantee and rejected the objections raised by the petitioner in relation to fresh corporate guarantee. The Dispute Resolution Panel sustained the downward adjustment with regard to trade mark fees and the disallowance made under section 14A. Consequently, the respondent passed a final assessment order under section 143(3) read with 92CA r/w section 144C(1) on 05.02.2016 determining the total income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2018, also by email on the very same day. Therefore, the notice was issued within the period of limitation. The reasons were furnished to the petitioner and their objections were also disposed of by the respondent on 09.10.2018. Therefore, the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stipulated in GKN Driveshafts India Pvt.Ltd. case (259 ITR 19 (SC)) has been complied with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned reopening is hopelessly barred by limitation as the same was issued not only beyond the period of four years but also beyond the period of six years. He further contended that the reply/objections filed by the petitioner to the reasons for reopening were not consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is seen that on receipt of such reasons, the petitioner has filed their objections in detail on 14.09.2018. The said reasons were rejected/ disposed of on 09.10.2018 by passing the following order. The notice for reopening the assessment was dispatched by e-mail on 30.03.2018 and by speed post on 31.03.2018. Further, based on information and analysis of financials of RDPL Singapore, the RDPL has earned profits from India and business activities are carried out in India by Redington India employees on behalf of RDPL. 9. A bare perusal of the above proceedings would undoubtedly indicate that the respondent, while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, has not passed a speak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
