Universal Subscription Agency (P) Ltd. v. Joint CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2007 TaxPub(DT) 0664 (All-HC) : (2007) 293 ITR 0244 : (2007) 207 CTR 0062 : (2007) 159 TAXMAN 0064 Universal Subscription Agency (P) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Reassessment - Change of opinion -Deduction claimed under section 80-O Assessee-company, a subscription agent, had received commission through subscription of various types of magazines and journals from foreign enterprises and claimed deduction of it under section 80-O. AO observed that assessee had received commission from foreign enterprises for services rendered outside India and had received commission in convertible foreign exchange in U.S. Dollars and UK Pounds and thereupon, he allowed claim of assessee. Subsequently, successor of AO issued notice under section 148 on ground that assessee was not entitled to get deduction under section 80-O. *Held:* Considering facts, it was held that notice under section 148 was bad in law as it was issued on basis of mere change of opinion. Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 147 A.Y. : 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 Decision: In favour of assessee. Case Law Analysis: Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170/[1999] 105 Taxman 386 (Delhi) [Para8], CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1/ 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (FB) [Para 8], CIT v. Foramer France [2003] 264 ITR 566/ 129 Taxman 72 (SC) [Para 8], Parikh Petrol Chemical Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 196/[2003] 129 Taxman 574 (Bom.) [Para 8], Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/ 157 Taxman 1 (SC) [Para 9], Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456/ 69 Taxman 627 (SC) [Para 9], Foramer France v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 436/ 119 Taxman 61 (All.) [Para 24], CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC) [Para 27], VXL India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1995] 215 ITR 295/ 83 Taxman 582 (Guj.) [Para 28], Birla VXL Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 1 (Guj.) [Para 29], Rakesh Aggarwal v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 496/[1996] 87 Taxman 306 (Delhi) [Para 30], Stock Exchange v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 906 (Guj.) [Para 31], Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj.) [Para 32], Pradeep Kumar Har Saran Lal v. Assessing Officer [1998] 229 ITR 46/[1997] 94 Taxman 124 (All.) [Para 33] and Jorawar Singh Baid v. Asstt. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 47 (Cal.) [Para 33]. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2007 TaxPub(DT) 0664 (All-HC) : (2007) 293 ITR 0244 : (2007) 207 CTR 0062 : (2007) 159 TAXMAN 0064

Universal Subscription Agency (P) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Reassessment - Change of opinion -Deduction claimed under section 80-O

Assessee-company, a subscription agent, had received commission through subscription of various types of magazines and journals from foreign enterprises and claimed deduction of it under section 80-O. AO observed that assessee had received commission from foreign enterprises for services rendered outside India and had received commission in convertible foreign exchange in U.S. Dollars and UK Pounds and thereupon, he allowed claim of assessee. Subsequently, successor of AO issued notice under section 148 on ground that assessee was not entitled to get deduction under section 80-O. Held: Considering facts, it was held that notice under section 148 was bad in law as it was issued on basis of mere change of opinion.

Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 147

A.Y. : 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95
Decision: In favour of assessee.

Case Law Analysis: Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170/[1999] 105 Taxman 386 (Delhi) [Para8], CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1/ 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (FB) [Para 8], CIT v. Foramer France [2003] 264 ITR 566/ 129 Taxman 72 (SC) [Para 8], Parikh Petrol Chemical Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 196/[2003] 129 Taxman 574 (Bom.) [Para 8], Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/ 157 Taxman 1 (SC) [Para 9], Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456/ 69 Taxman 627 (SC) [Para 9], Foramer France v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 436/ 119 Taxman 61 (All.) [Para 24], CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC) [Para 27], VXL India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1995] 215 ITR 295/ 83 Taxman 582 (Guj.) [Para 28], Birla VXL Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 1 (Guj.) [Para 29], Rakesh Aggarwal v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 496/[1996] 87 Taxman 306 (Delhi) [Para 30], Stock Exchange v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 906 (Guj.) [Para 31], Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj.) [Para 32], Pradeep Kumar Har Saran Lal v. Assessing Officer [1998] 229 ITR 46/[1997] 94 Taxman 124 (All.) [Para 33] and Jorawar Singh Baid v. Asstt. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 47 (Cal.) [Para 33].