TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring for revenue presses the following questions of law for our consideration: "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in this case was not valid and quashing the reassessment order dated 28 November 2008 passed by the Assessing Officer? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated u/s 147 on mere change of opinion, ignoring the detailed reasons given by the Assessing Officer which have e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e expenditure of Rs. 7,03,36,291/- should have been capitalized and depreciation at 60% or 30% as applicable should have been allowed depending on the date of installation. Thus the assessee's claim of software charges of Rs. 4,40,85,941/- is not allowable and the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,71,42,796/- has escaped the assessment as worked out as under:- Total software expenditure debited 7,03,36,291 Less: Expenditure capitalized 2,62,50,350 Balance allowed as revenue expenditure 4,40,85,941 Purchased/installed upto 30.9.02 1,23,91,210 Purchased/installed upto 30.9.02 3,16,94,731 Purchased/installed from 1.10.02 74,34,726 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim has been allowed. The explanation given by the assessee for claiming the interest as deduction was that the interest was received as refund of 234B of the Act and the same was paid in the past as under: A.Y. 1993-94 42,16,122 A.Y. 2000-01 6,62,41,729 A.Y. 2001-02 93,33,004 Total 7,97,90,855 In the above assessment years, the payment of the above interest was not allowed and was added back to the income of the respective years. Therefore, when part of it was refunded as over charge of interest u/s. 234B of the Act refunded to us, they cannot be taxed. In view of the matter, this amount of Rs. 6,97,50,863/is excluded from chargeable income of this year. The assessee's above contention is not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 12 March 2010 upheld the order of the Assessing Officer dated 20 November 2008 passed under Section 143 r/w Section 147 of the Act. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the respondent assessee's appeal interalia holding that all the three grounds which form the basis of the impugned notice were a subject matter of consideration leading to order dated 20 February 2006 in regular assessment proceedings. In particular the impugned order records as under: "On perusal of assessment order, we observe that AO at the time of making original assessment dated 28.02.2006 considered the issues of allowing software charges of Rs. 4,40,85,941/- as revenue expenditure and a sum of Rs. 2,62,52,350/- as capital in nature af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us view. This according to the revenue would warrant a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act. On the other hand, respondent assessee did attempt to point out to us from the assessment order that the grounds in support of the impugned notice were a subject matter of consideration in regular assessment proceedings. 8. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that all the issues which form the basis of the reopening notice, was a subject matter of consideration during the regular assessment proceedings. On the above facts the impugned order records that reconsideration of the same material would amount to a review of an assessment order which is not permissible. The Apex Court in CIT Vs. Kelvina....