Omission of section 92BA(i) in the statute - Reopening
by PCIT whether permitted
Facts:
Certain
related party payments were questioned by the PCIT under section 263by
reopening the original order passed by AO under section 143(3). On appeal
assessee's plea was that the reopening was incorrect as the said section thru
which the related party payments allegedly hit by section 40A(2) was thru section
92BA(i) and the said section 92BA(i) itself was omitted in the statute vide
Finance Act, 2017. On appeal questioning the reopening -
Held
in favour of the assessee that the reopening was not permitted consequential to
obliteration of section 92BA(i) in the law.
Applied:
Pr. CIT v. Texport Overseas P. Ltd. (2020)
114 taxmann.com 568 (Kar.) : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2756 (Karn-HC)
Shahi Expoprts Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [ITA. No.
483/Del/2021]
Yorkn Tech. Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA. No.
635/Del/2021 dated 18-08-2021;
SMR Automotive Systems India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [ITA.
No. 6597/Del/2018, dt. 25-5-2022];
Bhartia-SMSIL (JV) v. ITO [ITA. No. 117/Gau/2019,
dt. 17-6-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2593 (Gau-Trib);
Raipur Steel Casting India Pvt. Ltd. [ITA. No.
895/Kol/2019, dt. 10-06-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2659 (Kol-Trib);
Srinath li Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. [ITA. No. 1035/Kol/2019].
Case: Durga Loha Bhandar (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 2552
(Del-Trib)