TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was correct in holding that reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer is bad in law even though there was no assessment under section 143(3) and the return was merely processed under section 143(1) ? II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decisions is bad in law without considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). III. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der-assessment. As stated earlier a notice under section 148 was issued on March 30, 2010. Later on a notice under section 142(1) also issued. 3. While going through the profit and loss account, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee have shown a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs incurred under the head software development. He directed the assessee to explain as to why the expenditure incurred by it should not be treated as capital expenditure. Vide its letter dated September 14, 2010, the assessee stated that during the year ended March 31, 2005, it had entered into an agreement to pay "software services" for information technology services, provided by the holding company for a period of three years, at the rate of Rs. 90 lakhs per year, tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee and assessment order the first appellate authority held that there must be tangible material for reopening the assessment even with the period of four years. Referring to the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), he held that audited annual account of the assessee for the financial year 2004-05 clearly disclosed the fact about the payment of software charges of Rs. 90,00,000, that service agreement under software charges were paid by the assessee was also filed before the Assessing Officer, that no new facts/evidences came before her subsequently, that there was absence of tangible material, that the Assessing Officer reopened the case on the basis o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....angible material especially when it was an annual expenditure and said fact was disclosed by the assessee. In the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), the hon'ble Supreme Court held as under (page 564) : "We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review ; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain preconditions and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take pla....