Sood Brij & Associates vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) -On reading the supplementary partnership deed, in the present case, it is clear that the remuneration is not specified. The manner of computing the remuneration is not specified. On the other hand, the remuneration payable is left to future mutual agreement between the partners who are entitled to decide and quantify the quantum. Remuneration can be any amount or figure but not more than the maximum amount stated in Section 40(b)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of Section 40(b)(v) are not satisfied.
ACIT vs. The Total Packaging Services (ITAT Mumbai)- The payment of Central excise duty has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and similarly, the refund of the Central excise duty also has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. The issue of payment of Central excise duty would not arise in the absence of any industrial activity. There is, therefore, an inextricable link between the manufacturing activity, the payment of Central excise duty and its refund. So Assessee is eligible to deduction u/s. Sec. 80IB(1) on Excise Duty Refund/Modvat Credit.
Shri. Anil H. Lad v. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Where the depreciation and loss of earlier assessment years have already been set off against other business income of those assessment years, there is no need for notionally carrying forward and setting off of the same depreciation and loss in computing the quantum of deduction available u/s.80I.
The SEZ sector has grown significantly since the enactment of the SEZ Act 2005 and Rules in 2006, in terms of the number of SEZs, investment attracted, and employment and exports generated. While these achievements are irrefutable and significant, a comprehensive analytical assessment of the performance of the sector and certain key developments in the politico-economic environment in recent years reveals aspects of the SEZ Policy and Operational framework that perhaps require a re-look with a view to possible reform.
