TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under are independent of and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits as under: 1. Order bad in law 1.1 At the outset, IBM India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant' or 'the Company') prays that the order dated March 31, 2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 12, Bangalore [CIT(A)'], upholding the order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'). be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 2. Lack of jurisdiction to initiate action under section 147 of the Act 2.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing so, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the said disallowance/ addition leads to double taxation since the provision for property registration charges has already been charged to tax in the earlier assessment years and the said provision was reversed/ credited to P&L account during the AY 2004-05. 4. Levy of interest under section 234B 4.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the ground raised by the Appellant that the learned AO has wrongly computed interest under section 234B(1) of the Act on total income determined on the reassessment order as against the tax determined in the regular assessment. 4.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the ground raised by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment order, it is noted by the AO that an amount of Rs. 96 Lakhs being "Property Registration Charges" was claimed as deduction on payment basis and this is the objection of the AO that the amount spent on Property Registration Charges is an expenditure in connection with acquisition of an immovable property and therefore, capital expenditure and hence, not allowable even u/s. 43B of IT Act. He submitted that because of these facts, the reopening is not valid. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. This issue regarding reopening of assessment was decided by CIT (A) as per paras 3.2 to 3.5 of his order and these paras are reproduced hereinbelow for ready referen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Order under consideration at page 4), there was material which has come on the record for assessment year 2002-03 that a provision was created in AY 2002-03 for this amount of Rs. 96,00,000/-. Though in the year under consideration, it was shown as a reversal of provision, the TAR qualified this expense u/s 43B. In that regard, the disclosure was not full and true, Further, this issue was never examined during the course of the original assessment. Therefore, it is incorrect to say there is any change of opinion. 3.5 Considering the above, the action of the AO to reopen the assessment is upheld. This ground is therefore dismissed." 6. From the above paras reproduced from the order of CIT (A), it is seen that as per tax audi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provision account and disallowance was made in the relevant year u/s. 43B. Thereafter he drawn our attention to pages 182 and 183 of the paper book and he pointed out that such provision is reversed in the present year by way of debit to provision account and credit to rent account. He submitted that since the provision made in the earlier year is already disallowed in the earlier year and in the present year, there is reversal of such provision which is already disallowed in the year of provision, amount credited to the rent account in the present year cannot be brought to tax in the present year and therefore, disallowance made by the AO is not sustainable. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He also submitted....