9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely on the basis of the change of opinion. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. DRP/AO has erred in issuing a reassessment notice under section 148 of the Act on the appellant despite the fact that the appellant filed its return of income and disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary to complete the assessment proceedings. 2. Without prejudice, the Ld. DRP/AO has erred in issuing directions to learned AO to apply deemed profit rate of 10 percent on the total sales made to DMRC by following the order passed by DIT (Intl. Tax) u/s 264 of the Act on 16.1.2003, such rate being highly execessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. The Hon'ble DRP failed in appreciating the fact that actual profit made by the appellant is less than 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contract in question, i.e. RSI contract is a "Works" contract and not a 'Sales' contract. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/AO hand learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B and Section 234C of the Act." 2. At the outset of hearing the Ld. AR pointed out that the issue raised in ground No. 1 questioning the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act has now become infructuous as in between the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court vide its order dated 1.5.2012 in WP(c) No. 13983 of 2009 in the case of assessee itself for asstt. year 2002-03 has been pleased to hold that the reopening was not justified. The Ld. DR was having no serious objection to the submission of the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have escaped assessment had already been assessed vide order dated 24.3.2006. The assessee had questioned the validity of the said notice issued u/s 148 vide a writ petition No. 13983 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and vide its order dated 1.5.2012 the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that reopening was not justified. 4. The Ld. DR on the other hand tried to justify the orders of the authorities below on the issue of validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. 5. The assessee, a non-resident, operating in India through liaison office and project office had formed a consortium which was awarded a contract by DMRC for a lump sum consideration. For assessment year 2002-03 it was found that assessee did not inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order wherby the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act are not chargeable in the present case. 8. In support of the grounds the Ld. DR submitted that charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C are mandatory and consequential in nature in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum Ghaswala 252 ITR 1 (SC). 9. Ld. AR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order with this submission that the issue raised in this ground is fully covered in the case of assesses itself by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessment year 2001-02 reported in (2010) 194 Taxman 495 (Delhi) in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated /Mitsubishi Corporation. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
