Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.22 seconds)
Apple India Private Limited , Bangalore vs Assessee on 20 July, 2016 cites

M/S. Rotork Controla India (P) Ltd vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Chennai on 12 May, 2009

5. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The issue in present appeal is on the validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner under the provisions of sec.263 of the Act. The Principal Commissioner was of the view that the AO merely allowed provision for warranty expenditure without looking into the aspect of whether such provision was made on a scientific basis as per guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Control India Pvt.Ltd.(supra). From perusal of the assessment order it is not discernable whether the AO had applied his mind on this aspect. No doubt once it is established that the AO had applied his mind on this issue and took one of the possible view, it is settled law that CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, but in the present case, we have gone through the written submissions filed before the Addl.CIT as well as the ACIT during the course of assessment proceedings wherein the Addl.CIT has sought for details of the provisions made for warranty expenditure. The Addl.CIT, Range 11, in exercise of power vested with him u/s 144A had issued a notice dated 03/12/2012 calling upon the appellant to explain and justify warranty expenditure charges debited of Rs.14.40 cores and how the same has been calculated on any scientific basis. The relevant submissions made in this behalf are as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 431 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore vs Infosys Technologies Ltd on 4 January, 2008

5.2 Even the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 290) upheld assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the CIT to set aside assessment order passed without making any enquiry and accepting the claim. In light of the above legal position, we uphold assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act in the facts of the present case. The proposition canvassed by the learned AR of the assessee that a possible view has been taken and therefore, the Principal Commissioner was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be accepted as in the facts of the present case, the learned AR of the assessee had not demonstrated before us that ITA No.824/Bang/2015 Page 9 of 10 the AO had verified the aspect of the scientific basis followed for estimating provision for warranty expenditure and it cannot also be said that the AO made an enquiry on this aspect. Since the AO had not looked into the issue of scientific basis adopted by the assessee for estimating provision for warranty expenditure, it cannot be said that the AO took one of the possible views, as the AO had never gone into this issue at all and applied his mind on this particular aspect. Therefore, reliance placed by learned AR of the assessee on the following decisions is misplaced:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 214 - Full Document
1