TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08-09. 2. The assessee-company raised the following grounds of appeal: "The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice, to one another. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-III ['the CIT] under Section 263 of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio. The learned CIT erred in concluding that the order of the Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 12(1), Bangalore ('the ACIT') is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The conditions precedent for assumption/exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 not being satisfied, the order passed under section 263 is bad in law and liable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of providing software development services, IT Consultancy and IT Enabled services. Return of income for assessment year 2008-09 was filed on 27/09/2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,24,75,777/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 41,26,61,651/-. Disparity between returned income and assessed income is on account of additions made u/s 92C of the Act of Rs. 34,93,45,736/- and addition on account of 10A of Rs. 1,08,40,135/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the addition, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A). While the matter stood thus, the ld.CIT issued a show cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n support of the proposition that an order passed without application of mind renders the assessment order erroneous. He, accordingly, set aside the assessment order to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the contention of the appellant that the amounts were offered to tax during the financial years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 293) in support of the contention that when the issue was set aside to the file of the AO, no prejudice was caused to the assessee-company. He, accordingly, passed the order u/s 263 dated 28/3/2014. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee-company is in the present appeal befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Micro systems India Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs. Kurlon Ltd. (52 taxmann.com 92). He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.G.Gopala Gowda (34 taxmann.com 154). 6. On the other hand, learned CIT(DR) submitted that it is a case of total lack of enquiry on the part of the AO while passing the assessment order and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed u/s 263 should be sustained in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. (supra). 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused material on record. Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the whole transaction for INR 853859 is reflected in Miscellaneous income comprising of Interest income earned on Citibank FD & Forex Gain on ERF accrued in books and routed thru P/L account for revaluation of Forex denominated intercompany liability and Bank FDs in terms of Accounting Standard 11 as at each Balance Sheet date." Therefore, the contention of the assessee-company is that the net effect of the transaction is duly reflected in the books of account, profit or loss arising out of this transaction is shown in the P&L A/c. It may be further noted that in the notes to accounts forming part of the financial statements, this was also stated. However, on perusal of assessment order, it is clear that neither there is mention about t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the learned AR of the assessee, are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the decisions relates to cases where there was an enquiry by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings on the issues which are sought to be revised by the ld.CIT. Whereas in the present case, as mentioned supra, assessee-company could not demonstrate before us that this issue was examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the ld.CIT , in exercise of his power vested under the provisions of sec.263 of the Act, is proper and valid in law and the ld.CIT is justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee....