AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1.1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), LTU, Bangalore ['Ld. CIT-(A)'] under section 250 of the Act, is invalid, void contrary to provisions of law and also contrary to facts, material evidence existing on records. 2. Re-assessment proceedings bad in law 2.1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) grossly erred in law and in fact in confirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings undertaken by the Assessing Officer u/s 147. 3. Dis allowance of deduction claimed on account of reversal of provisions 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) erred in sustaining disallowance made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 16/11/2011 at a total income of Rs. 849,71,54,003/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer [AO] had come to know during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10 that the assessee claimed exemption of interest-free tax bonds of Rs. 105,00,450/- under the provisions of section 10(23G) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09. Since provisions of sec.10(23G) of the Act were omitted by the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1/4/2007, the AO formed a belief that income escaped assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 and accordingly re-opened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons and a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 21/3/2013 was issued and served on the assessee-company. In response to said notice, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) * CIT vs SR Construction (2002) 257 ITR 502 (MP) * Techno craft industries and Others vs JC shan, Second Income-tax Officer and Others (186 ITR 514) (Bom-HC) * Rallis India Ltd. vs ACIT (2010) (TIOL 173 HC Mum IT) * Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs ACIT ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) * Asteroids Trading and Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom) The above submissions have been negative by the CIT(A) by holding that there was no opinion formed by the AO at the time of framing original assessment and therefore the re-assessment proceedings are not vitiated by change of opinion and thereby confirmed the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. As regards the disallo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsequent years after verifying TDS and its deposit. Reversal of provision is not the correct procedure for claiming the deduction. The AO's reference to section 41(1) appears to have confused the picture. The appellant was required to link the provisioned amount [originally suo moto disallowed u/s 40(a)] to later TDS done when bills were received from the parties. The appellant has expressed its inability to furnish these factual details and expressed helplessness in view of the transactions pertaining to older periods. In view of this non-verifiability I hold that the deduction claimed on the basis of written back provision was not correct and, infact, even the verification of whether the amounts indeed constituted surplus provision h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had come to know that during the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 2009-10 that exemption was wrongly allowed u/s 10(23G) of the Act which was no longer in vogue. The fact that the provisions of section 10(23G) of the Act omitted bny the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1/4/2007, were brought to the notice of the AO only during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10. Discovery of this information enabled the AO to form opinion that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd.,(supra) cannot be applied. As regards merits, the CIT(DR) submitted that the assessee-company had failed to discharge the onus of provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st u/s 10(23G) of the Act. Therefore, we hold that initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 is valid in law. 7. Now, coming to merits of the addition of Rs. 5,27,67,000/- on account of reversal of provision for royalty, fees for technical service etc., of Rs. 79,12,000/- on account of reversal of provision for contractor and professional fee etc., it is the claim of the assessee-company that these amounts were disallowed u/s 40a(ia) suo motu for non-deduction of tax at source. In the year under consider consideration, the very provision created was reversed and therefore the same should be allowed as a deduction. There is no quarrel on this proposition but the claim can be allowed only on satisfying the AO that the provision was r....