9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt; "[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee company had not started providing telecommunication service during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1996-97? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80IA, for the year under consideration? [C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of Rs. 67.51 Crores paid by the assessee to DOT as license fees was an allowable expenditure u/s. 37(1)? " 2. Heard, Shri. Nitin Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue, at length. 3. Now, so far as the proposed question No.2[A] is conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1996-97 concluded that no business activities were carried out. Therese evidences lead only to one conclusion that the assessee did not start providing telecommunication services in the period relevant to the AY 1996-97. we are further of the opinion that whether or not the assessee started providing telecommunication services in any year, has to be decided in the assessment proceedings for that year in the light of the relevant facts and circumstances obtaining in that assessment year alone. Here we may refer to the following passage occurring in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 137 (SC) 142:- "The extent to which a decision given by an Income-tax Officer for one assessment year affects or binds a decision for ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of levy of pentaly u/s 271(1)(a) observed as under: "It is no doubt true that the strict rule of the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. At the same time, it is equally true that unless there is a change of circumstances, the authorities will not depart from previous decisions at their sweet will in the absence of material circumstances or reasons for such departure : Joint Family of Udaya Chinubhai Vs. CIT [1967]63 ITR 416(SC), AIR 1967 SC 762; Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC), AIR 1992 SC 377; H.A. Shah and Co. v. CIT/EPT [1956] 30 ITR 618 (Bom). In the last mentioned case, it was observed that if the question was not considered in detail in earlier proceedings, it is open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03] 263 ITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi), Dhansiram Agarwalla Vs. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT Vs. Shiv Sagar Estate [2002] 257 ITR 59 (SC) and Union of India Vs. Satish Pannalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). In our opinion, there was no good and justifiable cause to take a different view and conclude in the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration that the AY 1996-97 was the first year when the assessee started providing telecommunication services, without there being any change in the factual position and when the earlier deicison was not challenged by the Department. As pointed out in the Director's report for the AY 1997-98 and the relevant accounts for that year, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
