2015 (10) TMI 947

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondents : Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J (Oral) 1. This writ petition pertains to the assessment year 2004-05. The notice under section 148 dated 28.03.2011 and proceedings pursuant thereto including the order rejecting the objections dated 01.11.2011 are under challenge in this petition. 2. The original assessment under Section 143(3)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e all the material facts necessary for the assessment. 4. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decision of this court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR (Delhi). In that case, this court had observed as under: "In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the conditions precedent for removing the bar against taking action after the said four year period remains unfulfilled. In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. (2009) 308 ITE 22(Delhi) we had agreed with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singania (2004) 269 ITR 192 (P&H) that, in the absence of an allegation in the reasons recorded that the esc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "Reasons for reopening - For the year under review. OIPL has been held to be the PE of the assessee in India. The royalty was paid at 15%. The assessee company is earning royalties in India linked to the PE. Therefore, this royalty income must be taxed @ 20% gross instead of 15%. Further, the royalty income offered by the assessee includes Rs. 11,064,710 towards the interest on delayed roya....