TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') accepting the returned loss, on 21.02.2003. What happened subsequently is relevant. 2. The department conducted survey operations at the premises of IAL Shipping Agencies (Kochi) Ltd Group on 24.08.2007, wherein it was found that the assessee before us is also one of the companies belonging to that group. From the report of survey, several facts came to light and the relevant fact was that assessee company also had an agreement dated 01.04.2001 entered with another company by name IAL Container Line UK Ltd which was also engaged in the same line of business as that of assessee company. Though assessee company was collecting freight and terminal h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee company is before us. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assessee strenuously argues that once there is acceptance of relationship of principal and agent between the UK company and the Indian company, as found in the orders of ITAT, Mumbai which has reached finality, there was no necessity to go into the said issue again so far as Cochin Circle is concerned. According to him, on account of certain material during the survey proceedings at Mumbai, there was an assessment under Section 144 of the Act, so far as Cochin circle is concerned and additions were also made on account of said materials found during the survey. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in placing reliance on the opinion of the Mumbai Tribunal by the CIT(App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng a de novo enquiry was that there are de-centralized companies. In the subsequent orders in the name of M/s.IAL which is nothing but M/s.IAL UK Company. The name of UK Company is changed to M/s.IAL Container Line India Ltd. In order to understand reasoning of the Tribunal, it is just and proper to reproduce paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Tribunal's order which reveal the material facts considered by the Assessing Officer. Paragraphs 4 and 5 read as under: "4. The AO noticed that the assessee-company as well as the UK Company are owned and controlled by members of the same family. The key person in both the companies was Shri.T.V.Narayan Kutty and he was controlling the affairs of both the companies from Dubai. It appears that the group has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ussions and the purpose of qualifying the observations are that the facts surrounding the various issues under consideration have not been clearly brought out either by the assessing officer or by the assessee. Be that as it may, we shall now proceed to discuss the facts of the instant case as understood by us. 5. The assessee appears to have claimed that it is acting only as an agent of UK Company and hence the shipping income generated by it in India belongs to the UK Company referred supra. Accordingly, it did not declare the said income in its Profit and Loss Account. It was also noticed that, in the assessment of another company of the Group named IAL Shipping Agencies (Mumbai) Ltd., the Department had concluded that there is no Age....