TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could be invoked on the treatment of interest income for computing partner remuneration under section 40(b); and (ii) whether the truck hire payments attracted deduction of tax at source so as to justify revision under section 263 and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Issue (i): whether revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could be invoked on the treatment of interest income for computing partner remuneration under section 40(b).
Analysis: The assessment had accepted interest receipts included in the profit and loss account while computing book profit for partner remuneration. The issue was already considered on similar facts in the assessee's own earlier years, where it was held that section 40(b) works on net profit as shown in the profit and loss account and that non-business receipts embedded in such profit cannot be selectively excluded merely because another view is possible. Where the Assessing Officer adopts one of two possible views on a debatable issue after inquiry, the order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the revisional authority prefers a different view.
Conclusion: Invocation of section 263 on this issue was unjustified and the assessee succeeded.
Issue (ii): whether the truck hire payments attracted deduction of tax at source so as to justify revision under section 263 and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Analysis: The assessee was engaged in the dairy business and the transaction was found to be a composite arrangement in which purchase and supply of milk was the predominant element, while transport was incidental to that supply. On that footing, the contract was not treated as a works contract for section 194C. Since the payments were not liable to TDS on the reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order could not be branded erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the purpose of section 263.
Conclusion: The revisional order on this issue was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside on both issues, and the assessment order was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has taken one of two plausible views on a debatable issue after inquiry, and a contract must be examined by its predominant character before applying section 194C.
TaxTMI 
