S. 271(1)(c): Non-offering of stamp duty/DVO value as consideration for capital gains does not attract penalty if facts are on record

The Tribunal finding that the case was not one of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or of concealment inasmuch as there was a registered sale deed and the consideration was mentioned therein cannot be faulted. Also, the DVO determined the value at a figure from that of the stamp value. The larger question posed for consideration as to whether s. 271(1)(c) penalty can apply to deemed income is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.

S. 244A(1)(b): Refund of Self-Assessment tax is also entitled to interest

In view of the judgement of the Madras High Court in Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd 294 ITR 438 (Special Leave Petition dismissed by the Supreme Court) and Sutlaj Industries Ltd 325 ITR 331 (Del) and the fact that there is nothing contrary, the Appeal of the department is dismissed.

S. 263: TPO’s acceptance of ALP shows two views are possible & CIT has no jurisdiction to revise assessment

On the day the reference was made by the AO to the TPO, there was no return pending for consideration by him and therefore, the very reference was bad. Even otherwise, the said Transfer Pricing Authority did not find fault with the adjudication of determining arms length price by the Assessing Authority. In those circumstances, the CIT committed an error in exercising his power u/s 263 and the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the said order.

S. 68: Purchases cannot be treated as “bogus” only on the ground that the suppliers are not traceable

The Tribunal has found that the purchases are genuine because they are supported by bills, entries in the books of account, payment by cheque and quantitative details. The AO did not find any inflation in purchase price or inflation in consumption or suppression the production. The addition had been made only on the ground that the parties are not traceable. The assessee had made payment through crossed cheques and AO did not find that payment made came back to assessee. The ratio of creditors to purchases is normal considering the past records of the assessee. The creditors were outstanding owing to liquidity as assessee is also required to get credit in respect of sales also. Even otherwise, section 68 is not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit. This is a finding of fact which does not give rise to a question of law.

S. 80-IB: An “industrial undertaking” can be formed by taking P&M on hire. Not necessary for the assessee to “own” the P&M. Dept’s tendency to try to unsettle matters strongly disapproved

(i) The argument of the department that if an assessee does not own plant and machinery, it cannot be an industrial undertaking is extreme and misconceived. S. 80-IB permits an undertaking to be formed by ‘hire’ of plant and machinery and does not require the assessee to own the same. A film production unit formed by engaging cameraman, editor, sound technicians and using their equipments for filming, processing, sound recording and mixing machines on contract basis is an “industrial undertaking” eligible for s. 80-IB deduction (D.K. Kondke 192 ITR 128 (Bom) followed, Textile Machinery Corp 107 ITR (SC) distinguished);

S. 147: If “reasons to believe” are not based on new, “tangible materials”, the reopening amounts to an impermissible review

(ii) The foundation of the AO’s jurisdiction and the raison d’etre of a reassessment notice are the “reasons to believe”. Now this should have a relation or a link with an objective fact, in the form of information or facts external to the materials on the record. Such external facts or material constitute the driver, or the key which enables the authority to legitimately re-open the completed assessment. In absence of this objective “trigger”, the AO does not possess jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is at the next stage that the question, whether the re-opening of assessment amounts to “review” or “change of opinion” arises. In other words, if there are no “reasons to believe” based on new, “tangible materials”, then the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. Here, there is nothing to show what triggered the issuance of notice of reassessment – no information or new facts which led the AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Orient Craft Ltd 354 ITR 536 (Delhi) followed, Usha International 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) referred)