In the books, the assessee treated the non-compete expenditure as capital in nature. Warding off competition in business even to a rival dealer will constitute capital expenditure. It is not necessary that the non-compete fee has to be paid to create monopoly rights. The non-compete agreement was to last for 5 years, which period is sufficient to give enduring benefit (Tecumesh India 132 TTJ 129 (Del) (SB) approved; Eicher Ltd 302 ITR 249 (Del) distinguished; Q whether depreciation is eligible left for determination by AO).

The profits from the supply of equipment were not chargeable to tax in India because the property and risk in goods passed to the buyer outside India. The assessee had not performed installation service in India. The fact that the contracts were signed in India could not by itself create a tax liability. The nomenclature of a “turnkey project” or “works contract” was not relevant. The fact that the assessee took “overall responsibility” was also not material. Though the supply of equipment was subject to the “acceptance test” performed in India, this was not material because the contract made it clear that the “acceptance test” was not a material event for passing of the title and risk in the equipment supplied. If the system did not conform to the specifications, the only consequence was that the assessee had to cure the defect. The position might have been different if the buyer had the right to reject the equipment on the failure of the acceptance test carried out in India. Consequently, the assessee did not have a “business connection” in India. The question whether the assessee had a “Permanent Establishment” was not required to be gone into (Ishikawajma Harima 288 ITR 408 (SC), Skoda 172 ITR 358 (AP) & Mahavir Commercial 86 ITR 147 followed)

U/s 147, it is only the AO’s opinion with respect to the income escaping assessment which is relevant for the purpose of reopening an assessment. While it is true if the audit party brings certain aspects to the notice of the AO and thereupon, the AO forms his own belief, it may be a valid basis for reopening assessment, the mere opinion of the Audit Party cannot form the basis for the AO to reopen an assessment. On facts, the AO had categorically come to the conclusion that the objection of the audit party was not valid and that the assessee’s explanation with respect to non-requirement of collection of TDS was required to be accepted. Accordingly, the AO could have no “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment and so the s. 148 notice was without jurisdiction (P. V. S. Beedies 237 ITR 13 (SC) & Indian & Eastern Newspaper 119 ITR 996 (SC) distinguished; Lucas TVS 249 ITR 306 (SC) followed)

If the AO does not assess the income in respect of which the s. 148 notice was issued, it means there was no ‘reason to believe’ that income had escaped assessment. If so, the AO has no jurisdiction to assess any other escaped income that comes to his notice during the reassessment proceedings. Though in Sun Engineering 198 ITR 297 (SC), it was held that the AO had jurisdiction to assess other income, it was not a case where the AO had not assessed the income in respect of which the s. 148 notice was issued. Explanation 3 to s. 147 also contemplates that the income in respect of which the s. 148 notice is issued is assessed (Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 (Bom) & Ranbaxy Lab 60 DTR 77 (Del) followed)

The second proviso to s. 153A provides that “assessments relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s 132 shall abate“. The words “pending on the date of initiation of search” has to be assigned simple and plain meaning. If the assessment is finalized, there are no “pending proceedings” to be abated. The pendency of an appeal does not mean that the assessment proceedings are pending. The word ‘abatement‘ refers to something, which is pending or alive and its suspension or termination. Proceedings which are complete are not liable for abatement (Circular No.7 of 2003 dated 5.9.2003 referred)

The phrase “by way of advance or loan” s. 2(22)(e) must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. If such loan or advance is given to such share holder as a consequence of any further consideration received from the shareholder, then such advance or loan cannot be said to be “deemed dividend” u/s 2(22)(e). Thus, while gratuitous loan or advance given by a company to a substantial shareholder comes within the purview of s. 2(22)(e), a case where the loan or advance is given in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by the share holder does not. On facts, as the advance was in lieu of the company being permitted to mortgage the assessee’s falt, it was not “gratuitous” and so not assessable as “deemed dividend” (Creative Dyeing 318 ITR 476 (Del) & Nagindas Kapadia 177 ITR 393 (Bom) followed)