II. Direct Tax Case Laws:
1. M/s
Lahmeyer Holding GMBH Vs. DDIT, W.P.(C) 7417/2012 & CM
No.18979/2012, Date of Pronouncement: 19.05.2015, High Court of Delhi
Whether
the assessing officer was well within his rights to construe the
material placed before the DRP as “new” material so as to invoke
jurisdiction under section 147 of the said Act.
Held No.
The DRP
in the course of the proceedings before it, made specific queries with
regard to the business restructuring of the petitioner and the
transaction in question. The petitioner gave a detailed reply and the
same has been noted in the observations of the DRP which we have
extracted in the earlier part of the judgment. The DRP, after examining
the entire business restructuring arrangement and the transaction in
question, did not make any addition. The Assessing Officer in his final
assessment order also did not make any addition on account of the
subject transaction.
It must
be noted that the DRP procedure is part of the assessment proceedings.
The fact that no addition was made in respect of the said transaction,
would clearly raise the presumption that after having examined the said
transaction, it was opined that it was not exigible to tax. The
subsequent view being taken, as indicated in the purported reasons for
initiating the proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act, would be
nothing but a ‘change of opinion’ which is not permissible in law.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. DIT Vs. Ram Kishan Kulwant Rai Charitable Trust, I.T.A. No. 1322/2010, Date of Order: 14.05.2015, High Court of Delhi
Whether
revocation of the certificate under Section 12-A ordered by the DIT
(Exemption) taking note of the decision of the AO for AY 2003-04 and
2004-05 is legally tenable.
Once the
notice under Section 12A proposing revocation was issued, independent
nature of the proceedings had to be satisfied. The assessee was under an
obligation to provide such material to satisfy that the donation
fulfilled the objective, rather doubting the AO’s reasoning was not
supported by law as he was not the appropriate authority. In these
circumstances the DIT (Exemption) was certainly within her rights to
insist on a proper explanation which in the circumstances of the case,
the assessee failed to provide – perhaps more as a result of its mistake
on his mis-apprehension that the entire basis for the revocation
proceedings or the AO’s opinion for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05. Once the
notice under Section 12A proposing revocation was issued in the
independent nature of the proceedings had to be satisfied. The assessee
was under an obligation to provide such material to satisfy that the
donation fulfilled the objective and were of charitable nature and as
such rendered any proposed action for revocation unwarranted. The DIT’s
order also has to be set aside.
(Please click here for judgment)
|