9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pen Court) The revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) whereby the assessee's appeal was allowed. 2. The assessee had in respect of assessment year 1999-2000 in the note filed together with the accounts and the returns disclosed that he received a sum of Rs.88 lakhs as one-time non-compete fee. He concededly paid advance tax of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity, which will be in competition with the current business of BAX and for observing the restrictions specified in NCA, a consideration amounting to Rs.8 lacs was payable to the assessee by BAX. " "The assessee had paid advance tax of Rs.27, 60,000/- on the above mentioned amount of Rs. 88 lacs and is now claiming refund of Rs.30, 74,254/- on the contention that as it is capital receipt, it shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought, substantiates the contention of the revenue that the above mentioned amount is chargeable to income tax. Hence notice u/s 148 issued." 3. The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment contending that there was no fresh or tangible material discerned by the revenue for notice for reassessment. This objection was overruled and the AO added back the said amount as business income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t having regard to the Explanation 1 of section 147 read with section 143(1), the reopening of the assessment in this case was justified. She also argued that the agreement entered into by the assessee under which the amount was paid had not been filed during the assessment stage. This according to the revenue justified the reassessment proceedings. 5. As to what constitutes valid "reasons to bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
