9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions made by the respondent assessee and on the basis of material on record has arrived at finding that because there was some difference in the service income as per the Profit Loss account and as worked out based on TDS, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. No substantial questions of law. - R/Tax Appeal No. 17 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2020 - Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala And Mr. Justice Bhargav D. Karia For the Appellant(s) : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. This tax appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'The Act, 1961' ] is at the instance of the Revenue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.( )3,99,18,901/- Add: (i) Upward Adjustment as discussed* ₹ 2,18,43,574/- (ii) Disallowance as per PARA9 ₹ 22,74,380/- Total Assessed Loss ₹ 1,58,00,947/* Disallowance of ₹ 48,78,986/of Royalty payment has not taken for computation and in the way for taxation to avoid the double taxation being the upward adjustment of ₹ 2,18,43,575/includes the same. 3.2 However, the Principal Commissioner of Incometax ( PCIT for short) found such assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He therefore, issued show cause notice dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and therefore, not reflected in the Profit and Loss account. Apart from that the difference on account of timing difference was of ₹ 2,32,16,538/. The respondent assessee also furnished reconciliation statement of difference between service income as per Profit and Loss account and as worked out based on tax deducted at source before PCIT. Learned CIT however, without considering the explanation offered by the respondent assessee passed the order under section 263 of the Act, 1961 directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment of the total income in respect of three issues on which the show cause notice was issued under section 263 of the Act. 3.4 The respondent assessee, thereafter, carried the matter before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat while framing assessment u/s.143(3) by an order dated 25.03.2014, the Learned AO specifically mentioned in para11 that the credit for prepaid tax (i.e.TDS) has been given after verification and its calculation as per ITNS 150. Thus the issue was already examined by the learned AP. Apart from that, the legal point being fulfillment of twin conditions that the order of the AO be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue has not been satisfied before invoking jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. In this regard we have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. So far as the issue regarding provision of nonachievement of target is concerned, the same was exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Resultantly, the impugned addition upon invocation of jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the learned CIT is deleted. 4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. Bhatt submitted that the appeal is filed only for the issue of difference between the amount of service income on which tax is deducted by the service provider and income which is shown in the Profit and Loss account by the respondent assessee. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act did not verify this aspect and therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and the PCIT was justified in invoking the provisions of revision under section 263 of the Act 5. Havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
