TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice under Section 148 of the Act. After hearing assessee and after rejecting the objections filed to the validity of reopening, the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was completed on 23.12.2009 determining the total income at Rs. 570,17,10,121/-. 3. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal vide order dated 23.9.2011. Challenging the said order, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal [the ITAT] and the ITAT dismissed the appeal by an order pronounced on 25.9.2012. 4. Another appeal was also filed by Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-2006, which also came to be dismissed by the ITAT. As regards Assessment Year 2005-2006, we do not have any appeal before us. Ms.Pushpa is not aware if separate appeal has been preferred. We are concerned with only Assessment Year 2004-2005. 5. On 7.7.2015, the appeal was admitted on the following two substantial questions of law: "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the orders of CIT(A), who held that the reopening of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,93,97,95,716 Thus, the balance of Rs. 10,83,39,284/- (ie., 2,04,81,35,000 - Rs.1,93,97,95,716) represents amount paid towards technology transfer fee. It is seen from the agreement contract between M/s.Hyundai Motor Company (ie. HMC) and the assessee that the HMC had granted the assessee, the right to manufacture, assemble, sell and service the licensed products and supply of technical know how on the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. According to Article '6' of the agreement, in consideration of the rights granted and technical know how supplied by M/s. HMC to the assessee company, the assessee company shall make the following payments to M/s.HMC. (a) Royalty as mentioned clause 6(2) of the agreement. (b) Lump sum fee not exceeding US $ 2 Millions or as fixed by the Govt. of India from time to time. The Royalty and lump sum fee as mentioned above should be paid by the assessee company M/s.HMC in foreign currency decided by the parties. The assessee shall pay the Royalty to M/s.HMC commencing from 1.4.02. The parties shall through a letter of concurrence specify the percentage of royalty payable by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RC credit to the tune of Rs. 128,86,38,853/-, but the assessee has not to proved that, it had opted to chose either duty drawback or the DEPB being the duty remission scheme and the rate of the duty drawback was higher than the DEBP during that period. Hence, the above DEPB/DFRC receipt should be excluded for the purpose of computation of 80HHC deduction being the export incentives as per the proviso to Section 80HHC(3) otherwise means that the deduction u/s. 80HHC can not be further increased on the above receipt by way of DEPB/DFRC credit. Based on the above facts, it is clear that assessee has not produced the material facts fully and truly before the tax authorities. Therefore, I have the reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment with in the meaning of section 147 of the income tax act." 7. There are factual findings that, during the original assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer had called for the details regarding the same issues mentioned in the reason to believe. The reasons for reopening by Assessing Officer are that assessee did not reduce the entire foreign exchange gain of Rs. 14,48,97,000/- from the actual cost of as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is deemed to have been accepted. Paragraph (14) of the said judgment reads as under: "14) We find that during the assessment proceedings the petitioner had by a letter dated 9 July 2010 pointed out that they were engaged in the business of financing trading and investment in shares and securities. Further, by a letter dated 8 September 2010 during the course of assessment proceedings on a specific query made by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has disclosed in detail as to why its profit on sale of investments should not be taxed as business profits but charged to tax under the head capital gain. In support of its contention the petitioner had also relied upon CBDT Circular No.4/2007 dated 15 June 2007. (The reasons for reopening furnished by the Assessing Officer also places reliance upon CBDT Circular dated 15 June 2007). It would therefore, be noticed that the very ground on which the notice dated 28 March 2013 seeks to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 was....