The Proviso to s. 14A which gives protection to the assessee with respect to AY 2001-02 & earlier years was inserted w.e.f. 11.5.2001. As the order of the CIT u/s 263 was passed earlier on 29.12.99, the protection under the Proviso is not available

U/s 144C(1) the AO has to pass a draft assessment order in the case of an “eligible assessee” which is defined in s. 144C(15)(i) to mean any person in whose case the variation from returned income arises as a consequence of the order of the TPO u/s 92CA(3). As no transfer pricing adjustments had been made by te TPO, the assessee was not an “eligible assessee” and the AO had no jurisdiction to pass the draft assessment order

The assessees’ contention that export profit has to be computed with reference to the P&L A/c prepared under the Companies Act is not acceptable because there is no such provision in s.80HHC to determine export profit with reference to P&L A/c. Clause (iv) of s. 115JB (2) provides that the “amount of profit eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC as computed u/s 80HHC (3)” has to be deducted in computing the book profits. Accordingly, only the deduction u/s 80HHC as computed under the normal provisions is allowable

The assessee has “accepted and admitted” that it has not given details with regard to proportionate expenses relatable to tax free income and argued that it was not required to disclose the same as s. 14A was not in the statute book when the ROI was filed. However, the details ought to have been given at the stage of the assessment proceedings & the failure to do so is a “failure to disclose material facts”. It is the duty of the assessee to bring to the notice of the AO particular items in the books of account or portions of documents which are relevant. Material facts are those facts which if taken into accounts they would have an adverse affect on assessee by the higher assessment of income than the one actually made. The assessee is a multinational company and it is difficult to perceive and accept that its tax or the legal department was not aware and did not have knowledge about s. 14A (Consolidated Photo 281 ITR 394 (Del) followed)

While the Special Bench was right in holding that a project with residential and commercial user to the extent permitted under DC Rules would be a “housing project” and eligible for deduction, it was not justified in confining the deduction only to projects having commercial area upto 10% of the BUA because once the basic argument of the revenue that the housing projects with commercial user are not entitled to Section 80IB(10) deduction is rejected, no restriction could be imposed. If the project is approved as a “housing project” deduction u/s 80-IB(10) is allowable irrespective of the commercial area

U/s 151, a notice u/s 148 cannot be issued after the expiry of 8 years (now 4 years) from the end of the assessment year “unless the Board is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice“. In the present case, approval had been accorded by affixing a mere rubber stamp. Rubber stamping of underlying material is hardly a process which can get the imprimatur of the Court as it suggests that the decision has been taken in a mechanical manner. Even if the reasoning set out by the ITO was to be agreed upon, the least, which is expected, is that an appropriate endorsement is made in this behalf setting out brief reasons. Reasons are the link between the material placed on record and the conclusion reached by an authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. There is no proper application of mind by the Board (Chuggamal Rajpal 79 ITR 603 (SC) followed)

To decide whether the institution exists solely for education and not to earn profit the test of predominant object of the activity has to be seen to decide. The purpose does not lose its character merely because some profit arises from the activity. It is not possible to carry on educational activity in such a way that the expenditure exactly balances the income and there is no resultant profit, for, to achieve this, would not only be difficult of practical realization but would reflect unsound principles of management. In order to ascertain whether the institute is carried on with the object of making profit or not it is duty of the prescribed authority to ascertain whether the balance of income is applied wholly and exclusively to the objects for which the applicant is established (Aditanars Educational Institution 224 ITR 310 (SC) & American Hotel and Lodging Association 301 ITR 86 (SC) followed)

The DRP, being an authority created under a statute and conferred with the powers, has the obligation to act as a body living to the expectations which the law mandates. The DRP has to afford adequate opportunity for personal hearing and deal with the issues urged by a speaking order which would reflect cogent reasons. This is apt to say so that no assessee can have any kind of apprehension that the approach to the DRP is perfunctory

The authorities can determine the true legal relation resulting from a transaction and if some device has been used by the assessee to conceal true nature of the transaction, it is the duty of the authority to unravel the device and determine its true character. However, the legal effect of the transaction cannot be displaced by probing into the “substance of the transaction”. The taxing authority must not look at the matter from its own view point but that of a prudent businessman. Each case will depend on its own facts. The exercise of jurisdiction cannot be stretched to hold a roving enquiry or deep probe

As the department had examined the fundamental nature of the transaction in the earlier years and its nature remained unchanged, the department could not have changed its view as regards the nature of the transaction by dubbing it as erroneous. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, Courts have held that where a fundamental aspect of a transaction is found as having permeated through different assessment years, the revenue is not permitted to change its view unless there is a change in circumstances. The department is not entitled to re-open an assessment based on a fresh inference of transactions accepted by the revenue for several preceding years on the pretext of dubbing them as erroneous. Associated Food Products 280 ITR 377 (MP), Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd 114 ITR 404 (AP) & CIT vs Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582(Bom) followed