9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoke his jurisdictional powers. However, if the enquiries conducted by the AO are inadequate or it can be said that there is no enquiry at all, then the CIT can very well invoke his powers u/s.263 of the Act, and revise the assessment order. The crux of the matter is that the AO should conduct enquiry to satisfy himself about the genuineness of transaction. The scope of the term enquiry can be different in different cases. There cannot be any hard and past rule to carry out a particular enquiry. Such enquiry would be subject to satisfaction of AO. If the enquiry conducted by the AO is an objective satisfaction, then, even though, the AO has called for necessary materials during the course of assessment proceedings, it will lead to an inference that he has not conducted enquiries he ought to have been conducted. In other words, mere obtaining and placing documents on records cannot be equated into conducting enquiry. In this case, on perusal of facts available on record, there is a prima facie indication that there are few abnormalities on the issue of buyback of shares. In such case, the AO after collection of certain evidences should embark upon further investigation so as to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on that score itself. Therefore, for all these reasons, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdictional powers and set aside the assessment order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) dated 31/12/2016. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld.CIT and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T has not brought any evidence to the contrary towards making such findings. 9. The learned CIT has erred in concluding that the provisions of section 2(22)(a) of the Act and/or section 2(22)(d) and consequently section 115-O of the Act are applicable by ignoring that sub-clause (iv) of section 2(22) of the Act specifically excludes a buyback of shares undertaken under section 77 A of the Companies Act, 1956 from the ambit of dividend and ignoring the binding circular No.3 of 2016 dated 26 February 2016. 10. The learned CIT has erred by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fidelity Services India Pvt. Ltd [2018] (95 taxmann.com 253), without appreciating that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has not dealt with or decided the issue of characterization of the payment for buy-back of shares on merits. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing. Statement of facts 1. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited ('the Appellant') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant is assessed to tax with the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT issued a notice under section 263 of the Act seeking to set-aside the Assessment Order in order to direct the learned AO to examine the examine the valuation of shares bought-back, the applicability of sections 2(22), 115O, 115QA and 195 of the Act to the said buy-back of shares. 7. The said notice under section 263 of the Act was issued after the Hon'ble Madras High Court had taken note of the Assessment Order in a Writ Petition filed by two of the Appellant's shareholders challenging draft assessment orders passed in their case on the same transaction of buy-back of shares. 8. Given the above, the Appellant challenged the notice under section 263 of the Act before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 7542 of 2018. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 25 June 2019 passed by a single Judge and the Appellant was directed to file a suitable response to the notice under section 263 of the Act before learned CIT, who in-turn was directed to pass an order without being influenced by any findings of the Hon'ble High Court in the Orders passed in the case of the shareholders. 9. The Appellant thereafter chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation amounting to Rs.620,00,35,495/-. The assessee had also purchased 16,709 shares from M/s. Market RX Inc. USA and 11,873 shares from M/s.CSS Investments LLC, USA and paid consideration amounting to Rs.39,95,95,735/- and Rs.28,39,42,795/- respectively. The case has been taken up for scrutiny assessment and during the course of assessment proceedings, several hearings were held by the AO and the assessee furnished necessary information called for from time to time, including information relates to buy back of shares from its shareholders. The assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.12.2016, wherein, certain adjustments were made to the total income of the assessee. However, with respect to the buyback of shares, the AO had accepted the explanation of the assessee and no adjustment was made to the total income. 4. The case has been, subsequently taken up for revision proceedings by the Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU)-1, Chennai, and a show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2018 was issued to the assessee seeking to set aside the assessment order and to direct the AO to examine the valuation of shares bought back by the assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the amalgamated company prior to the date of amalgamation was Rs.22,582/- per equity share, whereas after amalgamation the intrinsic value of share is reduced to Rs.5,035.63 per equity share. Thus, the ld.CIT was of the opinion that when the fair market value of the share as on the date of buyback of share was at Rs.5,035/- per share, but the assessee has purchased its own shares from its shareholder @ Rs.23,915/- per share in order to make payment to shareholders without affecting taxability under the provision of Sec.2(22)(a) / 2(22)(d) of the Act. The ld.CIT had discussed the issue in light of fair market value of the shares determined by the assessee by following the DCF method and also future cash flows considered by the assessee for the FY 2018-19 to FY 2022-23 in light of a scheme of arrangement and compromise approved by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the FY 2016-17 and observed that there is a variation in free cash flows considered by the assessee which is ranging from 74% to 84% and thus, opined that the assessee has shown cash flows to over value the share price of Rs.23,915/- per share as against the actual value of the shares of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but failed to carry out necessary enquires or verification which he should have been made in light of various provisions of the Act, which rendered the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, set aside the assessment order passed by the AO and direct the AO to examine the DCF valuation of the shares and determine the excess consideration, if any, over and above the fair market value of the shares paid to the shareholders and invoke the provisions of Sec.115-O to 115-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in order to treat such excess consideration as distribution of dividends u/s.2(22)(a) of the Act, and recover DDT payable by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Aggrieved by the CIT order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Ajay Vohra, submitted that the ld.CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s.263 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act, twin conditions must be satisfied in as much as the order passed by the AO should be erroneous and further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the consideration received by the shareholders on buyback of shares and not fair market value. Further, CBDT Circular No.3 of 2016 clearly provides that consideration for buyback of shares can be taxed only as capital gain in the hands of the shareholders, and no such amount can be treated as dividend. Since, Circular issued by the CBDT are binding on the tax authorities, the AO after considering necessary facts including the CBDT Circular, has taken a view and hence, the CIT cannot review the order passed by the AO on very same issue by holding that the AO has not carried out required enquiries. The ld.AR for the assessee, further referring to the decision of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Goldman Sachs (India) Securities (P.) Ltd. reported in [2016] 70 taxmann.com 46 (Mumbai-Trib.), submitted that the Tribunal clearly held that consideration for buyback of shares is taxable only as capital gains and cannot be treated as dividend notwithstanding that capital gains is exempt from tax in India in the hands of Mauritius shareholder in view of the available treaty exemption. The ld.AR further submitted that the department has assessed capital gain declared by two USA resident sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue involved in hand is debatable and further, there is no scope for the revenue to re-characterization of income arising from buyback of shares as dividend. The assessee has determined the fair market value of the shares as per DCF methodology and such valuation carried was out by an independent valuer. He further submitted that the assessment can be set aside only in a case, lack of enquiry and not for inadequate enquiry. In the present case, detailed enquires has been made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings in relation to the buyback of shares as evident from order sheet entry. The AO had specifically asked for the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties, documents relating to date of receipt of the amounts and value at which purchase was made for each entity. The AO had also examined valuation of shares and also non-applicability of dividend taxation to the buyback of shares. In response to the queries, the assessee had submitted detailed replies dated 20.12.2016. Therefore, merely because, the issue does not mention in the assessment order, it does not mean that the same has not been examined by the AO. 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, there is no intent for avoidance of tax considering that the assessee could have repatriated the same amount of buyback consideration to the shareholders by buying back larger number of shares at lower price without breaching the provisions of Sec.77A of the Companies Act, 1956, and without resulting in dilution of the inter-se shareholding percentage. In this regard, the assessee has illiterated how consideration paid by the assessee is not impacted the shareholding pattern of shareholders. 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the revenue has taken a contradictory position in as much as in the case of the assessee, the CIT has directed the AO to determine the fair value of shares as per DCF method and treat the same as capital gains to the extent of fair market value and balance as dividends liable for dividend distribution tax u/s.115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, in the case of shareholders, the AO in the draft assessment order has treated the buyback consideration as taxable under the head 'capital gains' to the extent of fair value and balance consideration under the head 'income from other sources', on which, tax is payable by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 CIT v. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 High Court of Delhi 10 CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. 372 ITR 310 High Court of Allahabad 11 CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd. 418 ITR 723 High Court of Allahabad 12 Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) Ltd. v. CIT 354 ITR 35 High Court of Andhra Pradesh 13 CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 High Court of Delhi 14 Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Vasudeo V. Dempo 196 ITR 216 Supreme Court of India 15 Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 913 Supreme Court of India 16 K.P.Varghese v. ITO 131 ITR 597 Supreme Court of India 17 Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen, Appellate ACIT 56 ITR 198 Supreme Court of India 18 CIT v. Kamal Galani 267 Taxman 114 Supreme Court of India 19 CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 High Court of Bombay 20 SL Lumax Ltd. v. PCIT ITA No.1692/Chny/2019 Chennai Tribunal 21 Khetawat Properties v. PCIT 113 taxmann.com 8 Kolkata Tribunal 22 Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 Mumbai Tribunal 23 Torrent Pharmaceuticals v. DCIT 173 ITD 130 Ahmedabad Tribunal 24 Fidelity Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tania and Anr. V. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 2172 - 54 CIT v. Titan Time Products Ltd. [2015] 273 CTR Bombay 55 Karmic Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO ITA No.3955/Mum/2018 - 56 VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO TS 281 ITAT 2020 - 57 CIT v. G.M.Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 255 Supreme Court of India 58 CIT v. Paul Brothers [1995] 216 ITR 548 High Court of Bombay 59 Russell Properties (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [1997] 109 ITR 229 [Calcutta] 60 Eldeco Properties (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 52 SOT 207 (Delhi) (URO) - 61 UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 Supreme Court of India 11. The ld. DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the ld.CIT submitted that the order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) dated 31.12.2016 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, because, the AO has failed to carry out required enquiries, he ought to have been carried out in light of Explanation-2 to Sec.263 of the Act, which rendered the Assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. DR further referring to the decision of the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by manipulating the projections to arrive at an illogical value of Rs.23,915/- per share. From the paper book submitted by the assessee, it is evident that the AO had enquired only in respect of buy back of shares. However, there is no application of mind with reference to applicability of section 115-O of the Act. During the course of appeal hearing, the assessee has relied upon orders passed in the case of respective shareholders. However, the same has no relevance to the issue in hand since there is no discussion either on Fair Market Value of shares or regarding dividends in the said orders. Therefore, he submitted that the CIT has brought out very clear facts in his order to the effect that the order passed by the AO is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, there is no merit in arguments taken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents: 1. Smt.Renu Gupta v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 45. 2. CIT v. Active Traders Pvt. Ltd., [1995] 214 ITR 583. 3. ITAT decision in case of M/s.Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.v. CIT in ITA No.1104/Kol/2014. 13. We have heard both the parties, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, USA, was holding 100% equity shares was at Rs.22,582/- per share, whereas, the equity share value of CIPL & MIPL was only at Rs.1,447/- per share and Rs.84/- equity share respectively. It was further noted that after amalgamation, the shareholding pattern of CTS has been drastically changed, as per which, M/s.Cognizant (Mauritius) Ltd. was controlling 76.68% share capital of Indian Company. Further, after amalgamation, the intrinsic value of equity share of CTS has been reduced to Rs.5,035/- per equity share. From the above, what we could understand is that there was rejig in shareholding pattern of group companies so as to restructure the share capital in the assessee company in the hands of M/s.Cognizant (Mauritius) Ltd. It was further brought out in the order u/s.263 of the Act, that the assessee has bought back its shares form shareholders @ Rs.23,915/- per equity share when fair market value or intrinsic value of said shares was at Rs.5,035/- per equity share. The assessee has justified consideration paid for buyback of shares on the basis of valuation report obtained from independent valuer and such valuation has been carried out on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. This legal principle is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83). Similarly, assessment order passed by the ITO without making necessary enquiries on certain important points connected with the assessment, would be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, when the ITO is expected to make an enquiry of a particular item of income and he does not make an enquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the CIT to interfere with the order passed by the ITO since such an order passed by the ITO is erroneous and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and we ourselves do not subscribe to the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee for the simple reason that although, there is no dispute with regard to fact that the AO has called for details about buyback of shares, but in our considered view, he did not carry out necessary enquiries he ought to have been carried out before allowing the claim of the assessee. Further, as per the facts brought out by the ld.CIT, it is abundantly clear that the AO has failed to apply relevant provisions of Act in right perspective of law, even though, consideration paid by the assessee for buyback of shares is exorbitantly on higher side when compare to intrinsic value of shares as on the date of buyback of shares. Further, the assessee has followed DCF method for valuation of shares and such valuation has been carried out by M/s. Ernst & Young, an independent valuer. Although, assessee claims that valuation carried out by the independent valuer is in accordance with standard procedure, but facts brought out by the CIT clearly indicate that there is an inflation of free cash flows considered by the assessee for subsequent FYs when comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered view that enquiries conducted by the AO resulting in drawing incorrect assumption of facts, makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, if the CIT on examination of records of assessment comes to the conclusion that the AO failed to enquire into certain other relevant aspects, which in fact necessitated for investigation then he has all the powers to revise the assessment order. To argue that once the AO, as per his wisdom has enquired into certain aspects of assessment which he considers relevant and thereafter, the CIT cannot interfere, is wholly untenable. If this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then it would mean that the provisions of Sec.263 of the Act, would be redundant. No doubt, if the AO has conducted necessary enquires and has taken a possible view, then there is no scope for the CIT to invoke his jurisdictional powers. However, if the enquiries conducted by the AO are inadequate or it can be said that there is no enquiry at all, then the CIT can very well invoke his powers u/s.263 of the Act, and revise the assessment order. The crux of the matter is that the AO should conduct enquiry to satisfy himself abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of distribution of accumulation of profits of the company in the grab of buyback of shares. No doubt, where the law enables the taxpayer to choose one out of various available options, it is the prerogative of the taxpayer to choose the option that leave the taxpayer with less tax burden, but such option should not be a tool for avoidance of legitimate tax payable to the exchequer. In this case, as per options available to the assessee, the assessee can either go for buyback of shares or distribution of dividend. But, such option cannot be an arrangement to give a colour of legitimate tax planning within the four corners of law. Legitimate tax planning is acceptable under law, if such tax planning is within four corners of law and this principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan(2003) 263 ITR 706(SC). However, if tax planning is solely for evasion of legitimate tax payable to the exchequer, then such tax planning needs to be examined by lifting the corporate veil to ascertain true character of transactions and this principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed view that the concept the of change of opinion is relevant in so far as re-assessment proceedings is concerned. However, when it comes to revision powers of the Commissioner u/s.263, what is required to be seen is whether the CIT has made out a case of satisfaction that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Once, it is noticed that there is no application of mind on the issue by the AO then the question of change of opinion does not come into play at all, because only when the AO after apprising relevant facts, formed a opinion then the concept of change of opinion would arise. In case, there is no opinion at all then the concept of change of opinion is irrelevant, more particularly in the context of provisions of Sec.263 of the Act. As regards the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee on the issue of specific findings from CIT with regard to error in the assessment causing prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, we find that the CIT had brought out very clear facts in light of fair market value of shares as per net worth of the assessee and fair market value as considered on the basis of DCF method and opined that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till holds good and thus, we reject the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 22. Coming back to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (supra). The CIT heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT(supra) and observed that treatment of possible over valuation of shares in case of buy back can be verified in light of provisions of Sec.2(22)(a) / (d) of the Act. The CIT while concluding his observation has taken support from the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld.AR for the assessee vehemently opposed decision relied upon by the CIT and argued that the issue of treatment of over valuation of shares in case of buy back of shares has not been dealt with or decided on merits in the above case. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has only laid down principles on the powers of the Hon'ble Tribunal u/s.254(1) while hearing an appeal which is completely different from the jurisdictional conditions for the revision of an order u/s.263 of the Act. We do not find any substance in the arguments of the Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) will not rescue the case of the assessee. 24. At this stage, it is relevant to consider observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT and Others (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), where it was held that the: "CIT was justified in exercising his revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the ITO had not made sufficient enquiries before granting registration to the firm and it was not necessary for the CIT to have himself made enquiries before cancelling assessment." In our considered opinion, this judgment is an answer to the contention put forth on behalf of the assessee that the CIT must initially indicate the mistake in the assessment order on merits by making proper enquiry at his end before cancelling assessment under section 263. This judgment makes it palpable that the very fact that the ITO "had not made sufficient enquiries before granting registration to the firm" was considered as sufficient enough to the CIT with the power to revise the assessment order and it was not considered necessary in such circumstances: "for the CIT to have himself made enquiries before cancelling the assessment." It transpires that the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the order and the absence of any discussion therefore, is a clear indication of his non-application of mind. The non-performance of such a duty on the part of the ITO culminated in distortions and prejudices to the revenue and such distortions and prejudices to the revenue far being set right the CIT invoked his powers u/s.263 and exercise of such powers, he cancelled the assessment with a direction to make a fresh assessment according to law. Such a power can by no stretch of imagination be stated to be a power exercised in appellate or revisional jurisdictional conferred on the CIT u/s.263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Active Traders Pvt. Ltd., [1995] 214 ITR 583 had also expressed similar view and held that when the AO had not made any enquiry on the issues then the CIT is right in setting aside the assessment order to redo the assessment. 27. From an overview of the above discussed judgments, it is crystal clear that where the AO fails to conduct an enquiry or proper enquiry, which is called for in the given circumstances, the CIT is empowered to set aside the assessment order by treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons to come to the conclusion that how and why assessment order passed by the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that case laws cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee on this proposition has no application to the facts of the present case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee had also relied up to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 and argued that rising queries ad seeking submissions on issues during assessment tantamount to application of mind and specific discussion in order is not necessary. We find no infirmity in said legal proposition set out by various high Courts including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case. However, those cases are rendered before explanation-2 to sec.263 inserted by the Finance Act, w.e.f.01.06.2015 and as per said explanation for the purpose of s.263, it is hereby declare that an order passed by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if in the opinion of the CIT the order is passed without making enquiries or verifications which should have been made. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ratio laid down therein, to the facts of the present case and find that those case laws have no application to the facts of the present case and thus, we are of the considered view that those case laws are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 30. In this view of the matter and considering facts and circumstances of the case and also by relied upon various case laws, we are of the considered view that the enquiry conducted by the AO in this case can't be construed as a proper enquiry and further, inadequate inquiry conducted by the AO in the given circumstances is as good as no enquiry and as such, the CIT was empowered to revise the assessment order. The order of the CIT is not based on irrelevant considerations and further in the present circumstances, he was not obliged to positively indicate the deficiencies in the assessment order on merits on the question of consideration paid for buy back of shares. Further, the AO in the given circumstances can't be said to have taken a possible view as the revision is sought to be done on the premise that the AO did not make enquiry thereby rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
