TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-2006. Besides, the challenge is also to the order dated 3 September 2014, rejecting the objections raised by the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner M/s.Tao Publishing is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of printing and publishing books, magazines and Compact Discs. The Petitioner had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-2006 declaring total loss of Rs. 5,34,230/-. In it's books of accounts, the Petitioner had debited an amount of Rs. 32,34,652/- as of expenditure for advertising. The notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, pursuant to which, scrutiny proceeding took place. On 11 Septem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following income have escaped assessments in the case of TAO Publishing Pvt. Ltd. For AY 2005-06. 1. As per Section 195 of the IT Act any person for paying to a non-resident not being a company or to a foreign company, any interest or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or any other income whichever is earlier deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force. It is seen from the records that as claimed and department allowed as expenditure debited in the head "advertisement expenses" to the extent of Rs. 1064281/- paid to America Multimedia Corporation, 80 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1403, New Yord. NY 10011, USA for promotion and publishing on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner regarding the belief of the Respondent No.1 for coming to a conclusion that the income had escaped assessment. The Reasons state that, from the record it is seen that the department allowed the claim of the petitioner regarding an expenditure debited under the head 'Advertising Expenses', wrongly. Thus, on perusal of the record the Respondent No.1 found that an incorrect amount was allowed as an expenditure under the head 'Advertising Expenses'. The Petitioner filed it's objections. The Petitioner set out the factors how the expenditure was correctly allowed. The Petitioner also pointed out that the fact that the concerned advertising Company was based in United States, was already on record, and also that it did not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Petitioner to provide all the material facts. That being the position, this ground could not have been taken up against the Petitioner at the time of disposing of the objections. Once this was not the basis for issuance of notice for Reassessment, it cannot be held against the Petitioner that the Petitioner had failed to make a true and full disclosure. It will have to be held that the Petitioner did not fail to make full and true disclosure of all material facts. The jurisdictional requirement for carrying out the reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that, in fact, there was no failure to disclose all material facts as ....