TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n stage itself. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner had received a notice dated 23rd March 2011 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) informing petitioner that the Revenue had reasons to believe that petitioner's income in respect of which it was chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 2004-2005 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the said Act. 3. Petitioner responded to the notice with its objections. Before the objections were disposed, various further notices were issued. All these notices were impugned in this petition as originally filed. By an order dated 7th March 2013 ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause - (d) was granted by this Court wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Know How Fees instead of only depreciation as claimed by assessee. As such, the working profit calculated by the assessee is not correct. The Arm's Length Price is calculated short by Rs. 116.20 Crores. Hence the income of Rs. 116.20 Crores has escaped income within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Yours faithfully, (Dr. Satyapal Singh Meena) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1, Aurangabad 5. As could be seen from the notice dated 23rd March 2011 issued under Section 148 of the said Act, the proposal to reassess is being done after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, viz., 2004-2005. Section 147 of the said Act, as it was then in force, reads as under : 147. Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts necessary for its assessment. As could be seen from the reasons quoted above, the reasons do not indicate which are those material facts that petitioner has failed to truly and fully disclose. 7. Mr. Walve relied upon a judgment of this Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (2) (2015) 55 taxmann.com 59 (Bombay) to submit that even if the reason for reopening does not specifically state that there was any failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment year, it will not be fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. We would certainly agree with Mr. Walve but as held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the details regarding royalty paid and lump sum fees for know how paid to Skoda Auto a.s. and fees for technical services paid to Volks Wagen AG. Before the original assessment order was passed, the Transfer Pricing Officer also had raised all these queries and passed his transfer pricing order dated 19th December 2006 which Mr. Agrawal states has been challenged separately before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Even in this order by the Transfer Pricing Officer passed on 19th December 2006 under Section 92CA (3) of the said Act, the Transfer Pricing Officer has considered the royalty, technical know how amounts paid and passed his order. This order of the Transfer Pricing Officer has been considered by the Assessing Officer w....