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: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: cpt :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
« From the Courts »
 CIT vs. Vatika Township (Supreme Court – Full Bench)
 CIT vs. SAP Labs Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court)
 Coca-Cola India Private Limited vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bangalore)
 ACIT vs. M/s. Veena Developers (ITAT Mumbai)
 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
 MANTOLA CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NEW DELHI Vs. M/S ML OUTSOURCING SERVICES (P) LIMITED
 RASHDA SIDDIQUI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII, NEW DELHI & ORS.
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAGHUBIR SINGH GARG
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III Vs. M/S. ANANT OVERSEAS P. LTDa

CIT vs. Usha International Ltd (Delhi High Court)
April, 25th 2012
S. 147: Q whether there is change of opinion if AO does not specifically apply his mind referred to Full Bench
 
In the Notes to accounts, the assessee had disclosed that it had received Rs.173 lakhs for transfer of exclusive distribution rights of AC and water coolers and that it was credited to capital reserve and not treated as income. The AO passed a s. 143(3) assessment order in which he did not deal with the issue. Subsequently, as the revenue audit raised an objection, the AO, within 4 years from the end of the AY, reopened the assessment on the ground that the said amount was chargeable as Capital gains. The Tribunal, following Kelvinator 256 ITR 1 (FB) (affirmed in 320 ITR 561 (SC)), struck down the reopening on the ground that it was based on the notes on accounts that was already on record, there was no fresh material and so it was a case of lapse of the AO and a change of opinion. On appeal by the department, HELD:
 
A case where the AO specifically examines an issue and applies his mind poses no difficulty because even if the order is silent, it is a case of change of opinion. However, in a case where the AO does not notice or examine a particular aspect in the assessment order and does not raise any written question or query, can it be said that the doctrine of mere change of opinion is applicable. There can be different aspects in which this question may arise including cases where the claim may be a repetition and allowed in earlier years. To what extent the presumption u/s 114 (e) of the Evidence Act applicable is the issue. The question is whether the presumption is rebuttable and when the presumption is rebutted. Further, whether the said presumption only applies to procedural aspects or even to substantive assertions relevant to the assessment. Though in Kelvinator 256 ITR 1, the Full Bench held that s. 114 (e) of the Evidence Act would apply and the AO would be deemed to have applied his mind, s. 114 was not specifically referred to by the Supreme Court nor did it specifically approve or disapprove the observations of the Full Bench. Accordingly, the matter should be examined by a larger Bench and the issues requiring consideration are:

(i) What is meant by the term change of opinion?
 
(ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened u/s 147, even within four year, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to income alleged to have escaped assessment and whether and when in such cases reopening is valid or invalid on the ground of change of opinion?
 
(iii) Whether the bar or prohibition under the principle change of opinion will apply even when the AO has not asked any question or query with respect to an entry/note, but there is evidence and material to show that the AO had raised queries and questions on other aspects?
 
(iv) Whether and in what circumstances s. 114 (e) of the Evidence Act can be applied and it can be held that it is a case of change of opinion?
{aD}
 
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2014 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

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