TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2014 over ruling the objection of the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment for the aforesaid Assessment year 2007-2008. 2.Regular scrutiny Assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act an assessment order was passed on 31.12.2009. Thereafter, at the fag end of the limitation, the impugned notice dated 29.03.2014 was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasons given for reopening of the assessment was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 06.08.2014 reads as under:- ''During the A.Y.2007-2008, the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- to Shri C.K.Ranganathan apart from directors remuneration of Rs. 99,21,973/-. The same requires....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AR, there were no fresh materials which would justify the invocation of the provisions of Section 147. It is also true that the AO has not brought on record any failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment.'' 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar reasonings has to be adopted for the present case as well as for the Assessment year 2007-2008. He further submits that for the Assessment year 2011-12, an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was pending on the basis of change of opinion for the reopening of the Assessment under Notification dated 29.03.2014 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is fairly submitted that e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es 12,527 8,462 Contribution to Provident and other Funds 867 720 Amount of Perquisites 1,564 1,705 Commission 14,000 3,883 Total 28,958 14,770 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the returns filed for the Assessment year 2007-2008 on 31.12.2019 along with the annexures also gave the particulars of the commission paid to the Chariman cum Managing Director of the petitioner. 9.It is further submitted that while passing the Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the several expenses and some of the other items which were missed out were also sought to be rectified under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act by exerc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be distribution of dividend or profits in the guise of commission. It was noticed that while commission was paid as a form of remuneration for actual services rendered, dividend is a return of investment and is paid to all its shareholders equally. It was thus held that if the commission is paid for actual services rendered, section 36(1)(ii) will not apply. This decision was followed by this Court in CIT Vs.Career Launcher India Ltd [2012] 207 Taxman 28/20 taxmann.com 637 (Delhi). These decisions apply to the present case. The substantial question of law in ITA No.669/2012 is answered in favour of the assessee. 12.That apart, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts and speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts and therefore submits the respondents herein was justified in reopening for the Assessment. 15.He submits that explanation 1 to section 147, makes it clear mere production of documents and books of accounts or other evidence from which material after due negligence facts can discovered by the Assessing Officer does not amount to disclose within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 16.He therefore submits that, even though, the petitioner had filed an audit report under Section 44AB of the income tax act and the annual report and other documents along with the returns on 20.03.2009, it could not be stayed that there was a true and full disclosure at the time of filing of the returns. 17.It is therefore submitted tha....