Category: In the High Courts: Part A-Reported Decisions

Assessee had filed returns of income on 21/05/2015 disclosing foreign income and assets. On 29/05/2015, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s. 148 of the  Act. The assessee made applications before the Settlement Commission for settlement of the cases. The Settlement Commission rejected the applications holding that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain these applications offering undisclosed foreign income and assets.

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and held as under:

“i)    Explanatory notes dated July 2, 2015 issued in Circular No. 12 of 2015 have clarified that the Black Money(Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015 comes into effect from 01/07/2015.

ii)    The assessee having filed their return of income on 21/05/2015 and notice having been issued u/s. 148 by the Assessing Officer on 29/05/2015 which was before coming into effect of the provisions of the 2015 Act, the applications submitted by the assessee before the Settlement Commission were maintainable.”

For the A. Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09, the assessee had claimed refund with interest in respect of relief given by Commissioner (Appeals). Refund was granted but the Commissioner held that the assessee would not be entitled to interest up to the period of giving effect to the order of the Commissioner(Appeals).

The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and held as under:

“i)    In cases covered under sub-section (1) of section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee would be entitled to interest on refund at specified rate. Under sub-section (2) of section 244A, however, such interest would not be payable to the assessee if the proceedings which resulted in refund are delayed by reasons attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part. In such a case the period of delay so attributable to the assessee would be excluded from the period for which interest is payable.

ii)    The act of revising the return or revising a claim during the course of assessment proceedings could not be said to be a reason for delaying the proceedings which could be attributable to the assessee. The fact that the assessee had filed an appeal which ultimately came to be allowed by the Commissioner, could not be a reason for delaying the proceedings which could be attributed to the assessee.
iii)    The Department did not contend that the assessee had needlessly or frivolously delayed the assessment proceedings at the original or appellate stage. In the absence of any such foundation, the mere fact that the assessee made a claim during the course of the assessment proceedings which was allowed at the appellate stage would not ipso facto imply that the assessee was responsible for causing the delay in the proceedings resulting in refund. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner was not valid.”

For the A. Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16, the assessee had filed appeals before the CIT(A) against the assessment orders. The assessee also filed applications for stay of the disputed demand during the pendency of appeals. Relying on the CBDT Circular dated 29/02/2016, the assessee was directed to pay 15% of the disputed demand for grant of stay of the balance.

The assessee filed writ petitions challenging the said orders. The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and held as under:
“i)    Undoubtedly, the present case raises the issue of balancing the interest of the Revenue, and the interest of an assessee. Needless to say, the Revenue does have the right to realise the assessed income tax amount from the assessee. However, while trying to realise the said amount, the Revenue cannot be permitted, and has not been permitted by the Circulars mentioned above, to act like a Shylock. It is precisely to balance the conflicting interests that certain guidelines have been prescribed by Circular No.1914, and Circular dated 29.2.2016. The Circular dated 29.2.2016 clearly states that the circular is “in partial modification of Instruction No.1914”. Therefore, the Circular dated 29.2.2016 does not supersede the Circular No.1914 in toto, but merely “partially modifies” the instructions contained in Circular No.1914.

ii)    According to Instruction No.4(A) of Circular dated 29.2.2016, it is a general rule, that 15% of the disputed demand should be asked to be deposited. But, according to Instruction No.4(B)(a) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, the demand can be increased to more than 15%; according to Instruction No.4(B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, the percentage can be lower than 15%, provided the permission of the Prl. CIT is sought by the Assessing Officer. However, in case the Assessing Officer does not seek the permission from the Prl.CIT, and in case the assessee is aggrieved by the demand of 15% to be deposited, the assessee is free to independently approach the Prl. CIT. The assessee would be free to request the Prl. CIT to make the percentage of disputed demand amount to be less than 15%.

iii)    It is true that Instruction No.4 (B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, gives two instances where less than 15% can be asked to be deposited. However, it is equally true that the factors, which were directed to be kept in mind both by the Assessing Officer, and by the higher superior authority, contained in Instruction No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914, still continue to exist. For, as noted above, the said part of Circular No.1914 has been left untouched by the Circular dated 29.2.2016. Therefore, while dealing with an application filed by an assessee, both the Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT, are required to see if the assessee’s case would fall under Instruction No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914, or not? Both the Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT, are required to examine whether the assessment is “unreasonably highpitched”, or whether the demand for depositing 15% of the disputed demand amount “would lead to a genuine hardship being caused to the assessee” or not?

iv)    A bare perusal of the two orders, both dated 23.11.2016, clearly reveal that the Assessing Officer has relied upon Instruction No.4(B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, and has concluded that since the petitioner’s case does not fall within the two illustrations given therein, therefore, it is not entitled to seek the relief that less than 15% should be demanded to be deposited by it. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner’s finances do not indicate any hardship in this case. However, the Assessing Officer has not given a single reason for drawing the said conclusion. Since the petitioner has been constantly claiming that it has suffered loss from the very inception of its business, from 2011 to 2016, the least that the Assessing Officer was required to do was to elaborately discuss as to whether “genuine hardship” would be caused to the petitioner in case the petitioner were directed to pay 15% of the disputed demand amount or not? Yet the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. Therefore, this part of the order, naturally, suffers from being a non-speaking order. Hence, the said orders are legally unsustainable.

v)    A bare perusal of the order dated 25.1.2017 also reveals that the Prl. CIT has failed to appreciate the co-relation between Circular No.1914, and Circular dated 29.2.2016. The Prl. CIT has failed to notice the fact that the latter Circular has only “partially modified” the former Circular, and has not totally superceded it. The Prl. CIT has also ignored the fact that Instruction No.2-B(iii) contained in Circular No.1914 continues to exist independently of and in spite of the Circular dated 29.2.2016. Therefore, it has failed to consider the issue whether the assessment orders suffers from being “unreasonably highpitched”, or whether “any genuine hardship would be caused to the assessee” in case the assessee were required to deposit 15% of the disputed demand amount or not? Thus, the Prl. CIT has failed to apply the two important factors mentioned in Circular No.1914.

vi)    For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is, hereby, allowed. The twin orders dated 23.11.2016, and the order dated 25.1.2017, are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Prl. CIT to again decide the Review Petitions filed by the petitioner. The Prl. CIT is further directed to decide the Review Petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”

The assessee failed to deposit the amounts deducted as tax from the sums payable under various contracts. A complaint u/s. 276B of the Act, 1961 was filed against the assessee. The assessee sought for compounding of the offence u/s. 279(2) of the Act. The Chief Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the compounding was not permissible in view of the guidelines issued by the CBDT imposed especially in view of para 8(v) thereof which stated that the offences having a bearing in a case under investigation by any other Central or State agency such as the CBI, were not to be compounded.

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and held as under:

“i)    The rejection of the assessee’s application was entirely routed on the Chief Commissioner’s understanding of the conditions of ineligibility in para 8(v). The view was based upon an erroneous understanding of law. While exercising jurisdiction, the Chief Commissioner should consider the objective facts before it.

ii)    The assessee’s failure to deposit the amounts collected was beyond its control and was on account of seizure of books of account and documents. But for such seizure, the assessee would quite reasonably be expected to deposit the amount within the time prescribed or at least within the reasonable time. Instead of considering these factors on their merits and examining whether indeed they were true or not, the Chief Commissioner felt compelled by the text of para 8(v). The material on record in the form of a letter by the Superintendent of CBI also showed that a closure report was in fact filed before the competent court.

iii)    Therefore, the refusal to consider and accept the assessee’s application u/s. 279(2) of the Act could not be sustained. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Chief Commissioner is hereby directed to consider the relevant facts and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within six weeks after granting a fair opportunity to the petitioner.”

The assessee, a charitable trust was registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the “Act”), 1961 since 1977 and was also granted approval for section 80G and the same were renewed from time to time till the A. Y. 2009-10. On 23/03/2009, the assessee filed application for approval u/s. 80G for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. The Commissioner rejected the application. The Commissioner found that the assessee was generating substantial surplus and was spending only a small percentage for charitable purposes. The Commissioner was of the view that the assessee had disentitled itself for the grant of renewal of exemption u/s. 80G of the Act as according to him, the assessee had deviated from its charitable objects. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to approval for the purposes of section 80G.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i)    It was admitted that the assessee was registered u/s. 12AA and that it has been held entitled to exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi). The assessee was granted exemption u/s. 80G of the Act from the year 1997 till the passing of the order. Further, the finding of the Tribunal, that the assessee had never misutilised its funds, had not been assailed.

ii)    The generated surplus having been ploughed back for expansion purposes also remained undisputed by the Revenue. The charges for its services were also considered by the Tribunal and were found to be extremely reasonable. The assessee was entitled to approval for purposes of section 80G.”

The assessee-company was engaged in trading of dyes and chemicals. A search was carried out in business premises of assessee wherein documents seized showed that assessee had paid commission to sister concern for rendering services of sales agent. According to the Assessing Officer, the relationship between the parties militated against the claim being bona fide, particularly in the absence of proof of rendition of service by the sales agent. He thus rejected assessee’s claim for payment of commission. The Commissioner(Appeals) noted that sister concern had been appointed as sales agent for the sake of maintaining uniformity in sale prices and to avoid unnecessary and uneconomical competition between the sister concerns. A decision thus came to be taken by the entities that a bifurcation of duties was called for and one concern was identified to act as the selling agent for the entire group of companies. The transaction thus found favour with the Commissioner as being bona fide and genuine. The Tribunal also approved the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the claim.

On appeal by the Revenue, one of the questions raised was:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the price difference borne by the assessee company in respect of the transaction with M/s. United Bleachers Limited, a sister concern, could not be disallowed alternatively, u/s. 40A(2), ignoring the reasons given in support of the addition by the Assessing Officer.?”

The Madras High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i)    There is no prohibition that related parties cannot engage in business transactions. Such an interpretation would render the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act redundant. Section 40A(2) empowers the Assessing Officer to effect a disallowance of payments that are, ‘in his opinion’ excessive or unreasonable giving regard to fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee or the benefit derived by him or accruing to him. Such ‘opinion’ has to be based on tangible material and not assumptions and suspicions.

ii)    The provisions of section 40A(2) are not automatic and can be called into play only if the Assessing Officer establishes that the expenditure incurred is, in fact, in excess of fair market value. This had not been done in the present case. The quantum of commission paid is thus at arms length. The decision to streamline business activities and establish a division of labour or hierarchy of operations is within the domain of the entities and cannot be trespassed upon by the Assessing Officer except where the officer establishes that such design or method is a ruse to circumvent legitimate payment of tax.

iii)    The Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV. vs. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1/204 Taxman 408/17 taxmann.com 202 points out the difference between ‘looking through’ a transaction and ‘looking at’ a transaction settling the position that a conclusion of colourable/sham can be arrived at by viewing the transaction in a commercially realistic and wholistic perspective, not adopting a truncated and dissecting approach. In the present case, there is a consistent finding of fact that the transaction was bona fide and acceptable. Nothing is placed on record to indicate that the findings are perverse. Thus there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed.”

The petitioner, an Indian company, was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger cars. It was a subsidiary company of Japanese company. It purchased raw material, spare parts, capital goods etc. from Honda Japan and cars were manufactured in India under the technical collaboration agreements and paid royalty. On reference, the TPO passed an order u/s. 92CA(3), but no variation was proposed to the returned income of the petitioner. However, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned draft assessment order u/s. 144C and made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) in respect of payments made by the petitioner to non-resident associated enterprise for non-deduction of TDS u/s. 195.

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and held as under:

“i) A reading of section 144C(1) shows that the Assessing Officer, in the first instance, is to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the ‘eligible assessee’, if he proposes to make any variation in the income or loss return which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. The draft assessment order is to be forwarded to an ‘eligible assessee’ which means that for the section to apply a person has to be an ‘eligible assessee’.

ii) Section 144C(15)(b) defines an ‘eligible assessee’ to mean (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in s/s. (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed u/s. 92CA(3); and (ii) any foreign company.

iii) In section 144C(15)(b), the term ‘eligible assessee’ is followed by an expression ‘means’ only and there are two categories referred therein. The use of the word ‘means’ indicates that the definition of ‘eligible assessee’ for the purposes of section 144C(15)(b) is a hard and fast definition and can only be applicable in the above two categories.

iv) First of all, the petitioner is not a foreign company and the Transfer Pricing Officer has not proposed any variation to the return filed by the petitioner. The Assessing Officer cannot propose an order of assessment that is at variance in the income or loss return. The Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the return filed by the petitioner. Neither of the two conditions being satisfied in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner for the purposes of section 144C(15) (b) is not an eligible assessee. Since the petitioner is not an eligible assessee in terms of section 144C(15) (b), no draft order can be passed in the case of the petitioner u/s. 144C(1).

v) In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner, not being an ‘eligible assessee’ in terms of section 144C(15)(b), the Assessing Officer was not competent to pass the draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1). The draft assessment order dated 31-3-2015 is accordingly quashed.”

The assessee was engaged in the business of providing telecommunication services and selling service products across the country. The assessee was served notices/summons u/s. 201(1)/(1A) in December, 2014 in connection with TDS proceedings concerning assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The assessee contended that section 201(3) inserted vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1-4-2010 provided period of limitation of two years from the end of financial year in which TDS statement is filed and four years from the end of financial year where the statement had not been filed. Since the assessee regularly filed TDS statements, period for passing order u/s. 201(3) for relevant assessment years expired on 31-3-2011/2012. Hence the assessee submitted that the notices issued in December, 2014 were time-barred. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the arguments of the assessee and held that the notices were valid and within the time-period relying upon the amended section 201(3) vide the Finance Act, 2014 which prescribed a common period of limitation i.e. seven years from the end of financial year in which payment was made.

The assessee filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court and contended that amendment to section 201(3) by Finance Act, 2014 was expressly made prospective with effect from 1-10-2014 and therefore the impugned notices/summons for financial years 2007-08 and 2008- 09 were erroneously issued by revenue. The assessee submitted that the proceedings had already become time barred in view of the provisions of section 201(3) prior to amendment in section 201(3) by the Finance Act 2014.

The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petitions and held as under:

“i) It is required to be noted that in the instant cases, limitation for passing orders as per the provisions prevailing at the relevant time and even as provided u/s. 201(3)(i) as amended by Finance Act of 2012 had already expired on 31-3-2011 and 31-3-2012, respectively.

ii) Considering the fact that while amending section 201 by Finance Act, 2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the same shall be applicable with effect from 1-10- 2014 and even considering the fact that proceedings for financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09 had become time barred and/or for the aforesaid financial years, limitation u/s. 201(3)(i) had already expired on 31-3- 2011 and 31-3-2012, respectively, much prior to the amendment in section 201 as amended by Finance Act, 2014 and therefore, as such a right has been accrued in favour of the assessee.

iii) Considering the fact that wherever legislature wanted to give retrospective effect so specifically provided while amending section 201(3) (ii) as was amended by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2010, it is to be held that section 201(3), as amended by Finance Act No. 2 of 2014 shall not be applicable retrospectively and therefore, no order u/s. 201(1) can be passed for which limitation had already expired prior to amended section 201(3) as amended by the Finance Act No. 2 of 2014.

iv) Under the circumstances, the impugned notices/ summonses cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and writ of prohibition, as prayed for, deserves to be granted.”

A notice u/s. 148 dated 27th March 2015 was addressed by the ITO to one Mr. Inder Pal Singh Walia, seeking to reopen the assessment for A. Y. 2008-09. The notice was returned unserved to the Department with the postal authorities endorsing on it the remarks “Addressee expired”. Mr. Inder Pal Singh Walia had expired on 14th March 2015. In other words, the notice dated 27th March 2015 had been addressed to a dead person. The ITO then wrote letter to the petitioner the legal representative on 15/06/2015 proposing to continue the reassessment proceedings. On 6th July 2015, the Petitioner wrote to the ITO pointing out that his father Shri Inder Pal Singh Walia had expired on 14th March 2015 and that the proceedings initiated u/s. 148 of the Act were barred by limitation. Additionally, it was stated that he was unaware of the financial affairs or transactions carried on by his late father. On 18th July 2015, the ITO took the stand that since the intimation of the death of Shri Inder Pal Singh Walia on 14th March 2015 was not received by her office “therefore the notice was not issued on a dead person”.

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and held as under:

“If department intended to proceed u/s. 147, it could have been done so prior to period of limitation by issuing a notice to legal representative of deceased assessee and beyond that date it could not have proceeded in matter even by issuing notice to Legal Representatives of assessee. Therefore, subsequent proceedings u/s. 147 against petitioner were wholly misconceived and were to be quashed.”

The respondent-assessee had for the subject assessment year inter alia disclosed an amount of Rs.7.12 crore as deemed short-term capital gain u/s. 50. This deemed short-term capital gain arose on account of the sale of depreciable assets. This deemed short-term capital gain was set-off against brought forward long-term capital losses and unabsorbed depreciation.

The Assessing Officer held that in view of section 74, such set-off on short-term capital gain against the longterm capital gain was not permitted. Thus, disallowed the set-off of brought forward long-term capital losses and unabsorbed depreciation against the deemed shortterm capital gain of Rs.7.12 crore. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) The deeming fiction u/s. 50 is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in sections 48 and 49. It does not change the character of the capital gain from that of being a long-term capital gain into a short-term capital gain for purpose other than section 50. Thus, the respondentassessee was entitled to claim set-off as the amount of Rs. 7.12 crores arising out of sale of depreciable assets which are admittedly on sale of assets held for a period to which long-term capital gain apply. Thus, for purposes of section 74, the deemed short-term capital gain continues to be long-term capital gain.

ii) Moreover, it appears that the revenue has accepted the decision of the Tribunal in Komac Investments & Finance (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2011] 132 ITD 290/13 taxmann.com. 185 (Mum.) as no appeal was apparently being filed from that order.”

The assessee was a charitable institution registered u/s. 12AA. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer denied exemption u/s. 11, read with section 10(23C) and also made an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal allowed assessee’s claim for depreciation.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) It is to be noticed that while in the year of acquiring the capital asset, what is allowed as exemption is the income out of which such acquisition of asset is made and when depreciation deduction is allowed in the subsequent years, it is for the losses or expenses representing the wear and tear of such capital asset incurred if, not allowed then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving its income. As such, the arguments advanced by the revenue apprehending double deduction is totally misconceived.

ii) Section 11(6) was inserted with effect from 1-4-2015 by Finance Act No. 2/2014. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the depreciation deduction in computing the income of charitable trust is to be effective from 1-4- 2015. This view is further supported by the Notes on Clauses in Finance [No. 2] Bill 2014, memo explaining provisions and circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in this regard. “The said amendment shall take effect from 1-4-2015 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years”.

iii) In view of above, it is held that the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable u/s. 11 and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer.”

The partners of assessee-firm, constituted a private limited company. The company was admitted as partner in the assessee-firm. Later on, the natural partners executed a release deed giving up all their rights in assesseefirm, in favour of the company. As a consequence, the company became absolute owner of the assessee-firm. The natural partners were allotted shares in the company for relinquishing their rights in the assessee-firm. The Assessing Officer held that there was a transfer of assets by way of distribution of capital assets on dissolution of the assessee-firm. He accordingly computed capital gain and made a demand. The Tribunal upheld order of the Assessing Officer holding that it was a dissolution of the firm and not conversion of the firm into a company since the relationship inter se between the partners had come to an end, the moment they released their shares in favour of the company.

On appeal by the assessee, the Madras High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) F or attracting section 45(4), the following conditions are to be satisfied:

(a) profits and gains should arise;
(b) from the transfer of a capital asset;
(c) by way of distribution of capital assets;
(d) on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals not being a company or a co-operative society and
(e) or otherwise.

ii) Unless these conditions are satisfied, section 45(4) would not get attracted. Every distribution of capital assets may not lead to the attraction of section 45(4) unless it happens on the dissolution of a firm or other entity. Similarly, every distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm may not attract section 45(4) unless it was a case of transfer of a capital asset by way of such distribution.

iii) The expression ‘transfer’ is defined in section 2(47) to mean several things. A sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any rights therein are all covered by the expression ‘transfer’.

iv) In the case on hand, the partners have taken equity shares in the private limited company that was inducted as the partner. Therefore, whatever rights that they had in the capital assets of the firm by way of being its partners, continue to exist in the form of equity shares that they held in the private limited company. In other words, one form of ownership that they had as partners of the partnership firm, got converted into another form. Hence, this is not a case where there was either a transfer of a capital asset or the distribution of a capital asset. This aspect has been completely lost sight of by all the authorities.

v) Therefore, the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee/appellant. The tax case appeal is allowed.”

In the A. Y. 2005-06, the assesee had advanced moneys to its sister concern of which the assessee was owning 89% of equity capital. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest paid by the assessee on the loans taken from banks observing that if the assessee did not advance money to its sister concern without charging interest, it would be left with sufficient funds to return the bank loan and the assessee would not have to pay interest to the bank. The Assessing Officer further held that the advance made to the assessee’s sister concern was not for business purposes, since the assessee had no business dealings with the sister concern. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance on the ground that the assessee failed to establish that the money advanced by the assessee to the sister concern was used as a measure of commercial expediency.

On appeal by the assessee, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) Whether the amount was debited to the account of the sister concern in respect of the payment made or the amount was actually paid to the sister concern and used by it for the purpose of business, was immaterial. Either way, the amount was used for the business of the sister concern. It was not even suggested that the advance was used by the sister concern for the purpose other than for the purpose of its business.

ii) In the memorandum of appeal, the assessee expressly stated that it had advanced the amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency for the purpose of business. This assertion was never denied. The assessee owned 89% of the equity capital of the sister concern. When a holding company invested money for the purpose of the business of its subsidiary, it must necessarily be held to be an expense on account of commercial expediency. A financial benefit of any nature derived by the subsidiary on account of the amount advanced to it by the holding company would not merely indirectly but directly benefit its holding company.

iii) There would be direct benefit on account of the advance made by the assessee to its sister company, if it improved the financial health of the sister company and made it a viable enterprise. But it was not necessary that the advance results in a positive tangible benefit. Thus the assesee was entitled to the deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.”

For the A. Y. 2008-09, The Assessing Officer disallowed payment made in respect of software without deduction of tax at source u/s. 40(a)(i) and (ia), holding that the payments were in the nature of royalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee’s contention that it was a value added reseller and the payments made by it for the purchase of software were not royalty but on account of purchases and that the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on such payments. The addition/ disallowance was deleted. The Tribunal concurred with the decision of the CIT(A).

On appeal by the Revenue, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) The agreement indicated that the assessee was appointed for the purposes of reselling the software and payments made were on account of purchases made by the assessee. Payments made by a reseller for the purchase of software for sale in the Indian market could not be considered royalty.

ii) It was not disputed that in the preceding year, the Assessing Officer had accepted the transaction to be of purchase of software. The assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. Deletion of addition was proper.”

In an appeal before the Tribunal filed by the Assessee, the assessee raised the additional ground for the first time that since the requisite notice u/s. 143(2) was not issued before completing assessment u/s. 147 the assessment u/s. 147 has to be held to be invalid. The Tribunal allowed the ground and decided in favour of the assessee.

On appeal filed by the Revenue, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) The legal position appears to be fairly well settled that section 292BB talks of the drawing of the presumption of service of notice on an assessee and is basically a rule of evidence. The failure of the Assessing Officer, in reassessment proceedings, to issue notice u/s. 143(2), prior to finalising the reassessment order, cannot be condoned by referring to section 292BB. Consequently the Court does not find merit in the objection of the Revenue that the assessee was precluded from raising the point concerning the nonissuance of notice u/s. 143(2) in the present case in view of the provisions of section 292BB.

ii) As regards the objection of the Revenue to the Tribunal permitting the assessee to raise the point concerning the non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) for the first time in the appeal before the Tribunal, the Court is of the considered view that in view of the settled legal position that the requirement of issuance of such notice u/s. 143(2) is a jurisdictional one, it does go to the root of the matter as far as the validity of the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 is concerned. It raises a question of law as far as present cases are concerned since it is not in dispute that prior to finalisation of the reassessment orders, notice u/s. 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. With there being no fresh evidence or disputed facts sought to be on record, and the issue being purely one of law, the Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it.”