The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

Delhi High Court Invalidates Assessment Orders Based on Obsolete CBDT Circular

30 October 2024 3:58 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Court directs fresh assessment for Mitsubishi Corporation, allowing consideration of additional grounds previously dismissed by the Assessing Officer.
The Delhi High Court has quashed the final assessment orders issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) against Mitsubishi Corporation, directing a fresh assessment in compliance with the Tribunal’s remand order. The court held that the AO’s reliance on CBDT Circular No. 549 from 1989 was misplaced, as the legal provisions under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act had undergone significant amendments since then.
Mitsubishi Corporation, a tax resident of Japan, filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06, initially declaring an income of INR 4.18 crore, which was later revised to INR 61.05 crore. This revision was primarily due to income attributed to activities of its Liaison Office (LO) in India. The AO, however, framed an assessment order rejecting these declarations based on an obsolete CBDT Circular and a Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works.
The court noted that the AO’s reliance on the 1989 CBDT Circular was incorrect given the amendments in Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, which now allows for refunds upon the culmination of an assessment. “The statutory amendments render the reliance on the 1989 Circular redundant,” the bench observed, emphasizing the evolved legal landscape.
The Tribunal had previously remanded the case, instructing the AO to consider additional grounds raised by Mitsubishi Corporation. These grounds included issues regarding the taxation of purchases, exclusion of turnover from exports, and the non-recognition of the Indian subsidiary as a Permanent Establishment (PE). However, the AO dismissed these claims, adhering to the outdated Circular.
The court highlighted the Tribunal’s plenary powers under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, which allows it to admit and decide on new grounds raised during appeals. The judgment underscored that the AO is bound to comply with the Tribunal’s directions during reassessment, irrespective of the claims made in the original return. “The insistence on a revised return is unnecessary when reassessment is directed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body,” the court asserted.
Justice Yashwant Varma, delivering the judgment, stated, “The amendments in Section 143(3) explicitly contemplate refunds, thereby nullifying the applicability of the 1989 Circular. The AO’s failure to recognize this change constitutes a misapplication of the law.”

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s decision mandates the AO to reassess Mitsubishi Corporation’s income for AY 2005-06, considering all additional grounds raised. This judgment reinforces the necessity for tax authorities to stay updated with legislative amendments and judicial directives. By invalidating the application of an outdated Circular, the court ensures a fair reassessment process, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: July 30, 2024
Mitsubishi Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax (2)(2)(1) Delhi & Anr.

 

Similar News