2019-07-13_Corporate_Professional_Today

591

July 13 To July 19, 2019 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 45 u 65

There was no dispute that the assessee was
sub-contracted as transferee or assignee of the
principal contractor and was duly recognised
by the Railways to operate and maintain
the said railway sidings at Railway Stations.
Therefore, it was entitled to the benefit under
section 80-IA.

    Writnotmaintainableagainstdraft

assessmentorderasobjections

couldbefiledbeforeDRP

Cognizant (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DCIT [2019]
106 taxmann.com 389 (Madras)

In the instant case, Cognizant-a Foreign
Company approached High Court for quashing
of draft assessment order passed by Assessing
Officer (AO).

The Madras High Court held that in case of
Foreign Companies, AO is required to pass
draft Assessment Order before passing final
order under section 143(3), to enable assessee
to raise an objection before Dispute Resolution
Panel. Dispute Resolution Panel is empowered
by Act to consider objections and pass suitable
orders, viz., may confirm, reduce or enhance
variations proposed in draft order. AO is
bound to pass final Assessment Orders in
tune with order of Dispute Resolution Panel.
Against said final order, the first Appeal lies
before Commissioner (Appeals) under section
246 and second appeal lies before Appellate
Tribunal under section 253. Thereafter, an
appeal lies to High Court under section 260A
on substantial questions of law.

Petitioner was having an efficacious alternative
remedy of filing objections before Dispute
Resolution Panel under section 144C or to file
an appeal against final assessment orders before
Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246A.
Thus, there being an alternative remedy of
appeal, the Writ Petition challenging impugned
draft assessment order having been passed

in violation of principles of natural justice

and in contravention of section 92CA(4) was

not maintainable.

    Distance fromthemetropolitanarea

isn’t elevantr toclassifyalandas

rural iculturalagr land

Naiyer Sultan v. ITO [2019] 106 taxmann.

com 191 (Kolkata - Trib.)

Assessee had sold a land and gain arising

from its sale was claimed to be exempt on

ground that said land was an agricultural

land and not a capital asset within meaning

of section 2(14).

In support of this claim, a certificate issued

by concerned Tehsildar was submitted by

assessee showing that land sold was located

20 km. away from limit of Chennai Municipal

Corporation.

Based on this certificate as well as provisions

of section 2(14)(iii) claim of assessee for

exemption was allowed by Assessing Officer

(AO). However, subsequently, he reopened

assessment on ground that on basis of information

received in form of a communication from

DDIT (Inv.) which stated that area of Chennai

Metropolitan region was much larger than

what was stated by Tehsildar in his report.

Land sold by assessees was situated at about

3 kms. from Chennai Metropolitan area, thus,

same was not rural agricultural land.

The Kolkata ITAT held that location of

land from local limits of Chennai Municipal

Corporation was relevant to decide as to

whether said land was an agricultural land

within meaning of clause (iii) of section

2(14) and distance of land from Chennai

Metropolitan area was not relevant in this

context. Therefore, impugned reopening of

assessment was unjustified.

WEEKLY REVIEW