Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: form 3cd :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

Oracle System Corporation Vs. Deputy Director Of Income Tax
October, 13th 2015
$~39

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Judgment delivered on: 08.10.2015
W.P.(C) 1873/2013 & CM No. 3570/2013

ORACLE SYSTEM CORPORATION                                ..... Petitioner

                             versus

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX                           ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank Nagi,
                     Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel for the
                     Revenue

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                             JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.      This writ petition pertains to the assessment year 2004-05. The
notice under section 148 dated 28.03.2011 and proceedings pursuant
thereto including the order rejecting the objections dated 01.11.2011 are
under challenge in this petition.

2.      The original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on



WP(C) 1873/2013                                                     Page 1 of 4
22.12.2006.

3.      We have heard the counsel for the parties. Without going into great
detail, the simple point taken by the learned counsel for the assessee is that
this is a case of reopening of assessment beyond 4 years from the end of the
assessment year and therefore the first proviso of section 147 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 would come into play. One of the pre-conditions for
reopening of assessment stipulated in the first proviso is that there must be
failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material
facts necessary for the assessment. It is the case of the petitioner/assessee
that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment do not even allege
that there has been any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly
disclose all the material facts necessary for the assessment.




4.      Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decision of
this court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT (2009) 308
ITR (Delhi). In that case, this court had observed as under:
                  "In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no
                  whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the
                  petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all
                  material facts necessary for assessment and that
                  because of this failure there has been an escapement
                  of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason
                  to believe that income had escaped assessment, it is
                  not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond the four
                  year period indicated above. The escapement of
                  income from assessment must also be occasioned by
                  the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose
                  material facts, fully and truly. This is a necessary



WP(C) 1873/2013                                                        Page 2 of 4
                  condition for overcoming the bar set up by the proviso
                  to section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, the bar
                  would operate and no action under section 147 could
                  be taken. We have already mentioned above that the
                  reasons supplied to the petitioner does not contain any
                  such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions
                  precedent for removing the bar against taking action
                  after the said four year period remains unfulfilled. In
                  our recent decision in Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. (2009)
                  308 ITE 22(Delhi) we had agreed with the view taken
                  by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of
                  Duli Chand Singania (2004) 269 ITR 192 (P&H) that,
                  in the absence of an allegation in the reasons recorded
                  that the escapement of income had occurred by reason
                  of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully
                  and truly all material facts necessary for his
                  assessment, any action taken by the Assessing Officer
                  under section 147 beyond the four year period would
                  be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view-
                  point, we hold that the notice dated March 29, 2004,
                  under Section 148 based on the recorded reasons as
                  supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent
                  order dated March 2, 2005, are without jurisdiction as
                  no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the
                  four year period in the circumstances narrated above."

5.      The said decision was also followed in Rural Electrification
Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. 355 ITR 356 (Delhi).

6.      The reasons in the present case, are as under:
                  "Reasons for reopening ­ For the year under review.
                  OIPL has been held to be the PE of the assessee in
                  India. The royalty was paid at 15%. The assessee
                  company is earning royalties in India linked to the PE.
                  Therefore, this royalty income must be taxed @ 20%



WP(C) 1873/2013                                                           Page 3 of 4
                  gross instead of 15%. Further, the royalty income
                  offered by the assessee includes Rs. 11,064,710
                  towards the interest on delayed royalty which should
                  be taxed at 41.82 percent. "




7.      It is be evident from the above quoted recorded reasons, that there is
no whisper of the petitioner having failed to disclose fully and truly all
material facts necessary for his assessment. Therefore, the necessary
ingredient for inviting the provisions of Section 147 is missing. As such,
the initiation of the re-assessment proceedings pertaining to assessment
year 2004-05 does not have the backing of law. Consequently, the
impugned notice under Section 148 and all proceedings pursuant thereto
including the order disposing of the objections are set aside.

8.      The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                           BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


                                               SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 08, 2015
rs




WP(C) 1873/2013                                                       Page 4 of 4

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Portal Design Website Design Portal Designing Website Designing Web Design Professional Portal Design Professional Website Design Professional Web Design Portal Design India Website Design India Portal Designing India Website Designing India Web Design India Professional Portal Design India Professional Website Design India Chicago Professional Web Design New York Professional Web Design California Website Design Florida Website Design New Jersey Website Design Britain UK Website Design London Manchester Website Design

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions