TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether Rs.96 and odd crores revenue would or can come under Section 44BB of the Act - both the limbs of Section 263 of the Act stands satisfied, namely, there was error in the order of Assessing Authority, and that, the error caused prejudice to the revenue – Decided against the assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 25 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2012 - Barin Ghosh, C.J. And U.C. Dhyani, JJ. Present: Mr. Nageswar Rao, Mr. Sandeep S. Karhail and Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) The assessee, appellant herein, though has its situs outside India, but has a permanent establishme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in India. Considering the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of CIT versus Halliburton Offshore Services Inc (300 ITR 265), the Assessing Officer held that reimbursement revenue is includible in the taxable income of the appellant. The Assessing Officer took note of the fact that goods/materials worth Rs. 96 and odd crores were supplied by the assessee to its Indian customers, but such sale stood completed outside India, inasmuch as, the purchaser of such goods/materials acquired title therein outside India. Despite that, the Assessing Officer held that 2 per cent of Rs.96 and odd crores would be taxable income of the assessee in India. In order to do so, the Assessing Officer took recourse to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer and there is no prejudice to the revenue. It was submitted that in the absence of either of them, exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act is not permissible. 2. The dispute is, whether 2 per cent of Rs.96 and odd crores would be the taxable income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year or whether the same would be 10 per cent thereof. Assessment of 2 per cent of Rs.96 and odd crores, as the taxable income of the appellant, appears to be totally erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellant correctly submitted that it may be possible that the assessee, being aggrieved by assessment of 2 per cent of Rs.96 and odd crores as its taxable income, has preferred appeal, in respect whereof he has no specific knowled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
