It is a well settled law that when two different views of the different jurisdictional High Courts are available, the decision favourable to the assessee is to b03e followed. The hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) has held that (page 195) “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well-accepted rule of constructions recognized by this court in several of its decisions”. Therefore, in view of the above, the Tribunal has been following the judgment of the hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) in various cases holding that exemption under section 10B is to be allowed without setting off brought forward unabsorbed loss and depreciation from earlier assessment year or the current assessment year. A similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the following cases as well :
There was nothing to show that unfair pricing was done by Microsoft in selling identical licence at different prices. No evidence was brought. The respondent was not tying its OEM with new computers. The purchase of personal computer has the choice to have the programme of Microsoft Office or Words getting installed in its computer if he so chooses. This cannot be, therefore, an example of tying up. There was no compulsion on the appellant to purchase Microsoft software to purchase the computers only as the OEM licensee was free to sell their product, i.e., personal computer even without the warranty that would clearly end the argument about the tying up.
It is evident from the above account of the conduct of the two officials that they chose not to take proper steps at appropriate stage for filing the appeal even though they knew that it was their duty to do so. We have also noted that Mr. Prasad is totally remorseless in his affidavit. If the company loses this case it is because of his inaction. We nave already borne on record that we are not satisfied with the explanation offered in the COD application and the accompanying affidavits. Heavy delay of the appeal cannot be said to have been satisfactorily explained, particularly the delay from the first week of April 2012. The COD application is dismissed.
CS Kiran Kumar Guptha B The SEBI, vide Circular No. CIR/CFD/DIL/5/2013 dated February 4, 2013 by rescinding the Circular No. SEBI/CFD/SCRR/01/2009/03/09 dated September 03, 2009, has revised the requirements for the Stock Exchanges and Listed companies desirous of undertaking a Scheme of Arrangement (Amalgamation/ Merger/ Reconstruction/ Reduction Of Capital, etc.) Under sections 391, 394 and […]
ALL INDIA PROVISIONAL MERIT LIST FOR CS EXAMINATIONS HELD IN DECEMBER,2012 SESSION LIST OF FIRST 25 TOP RANKERS WHO HAVE PASSED ALL PAPERS OF FOUNDATION PROGRAMME, EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME AND PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMME EXAMINATIONS WITHOUT EXEMPTION IN ANY PAPER, IN ONE SITTING, IN DECEMBER , 2012 : Download Merit List List of Top-3 in CS December, 2012 […]
While working out the profits and gains which qualify for deduction under Section 80HH, one has to necessarily restrict the income which is derived from the industrial undertaking and nothing beyond. Thus, for the purpose of Section 80HH, the income of that industrial undertaking which got into the reckoning of the book profit for the purposes of Section 32AB has to be identified and that alone would be included in the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of working out the relief under Chapter VIA.
We observe that the assessee can either captively consume the electricity generated or can sell the same to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Rs. 2.70 per unit. The assessee is refrained from directly selling generated electricity to the consumers. The assessee has no other option but to sell the electricity generated to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at the predetermined rates.
In the present case the Tribunal found that the DVO’s report is based on his opinion, and not on any material, which could form the basis of reopening of the cases, and thus it can at best be treated as an information, which will not be sufficient material for recording ‘reason to believe’ to proceed in the matter. The opinion of the DVO, as to what would be reasonable percentage of architects fees and the supervision charges by the Directors, would not constitute tangible material for exercising powers of reopening the assessment.
As CA certificate did not conform to the provisions contained in the regulations which requires that the certificate of the Chartered Accountant should be in confirmation of the Audited Accounts of the promoters/applicant for the five years preceding the date of the application. We are unable to approve the observations made by SAT that “neither the regulations nor the eligibility criteria in Form A requires the applicant to produce the annual accounts of the promoter.”
The above factual matrix of the case nowhere proves that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished any inaccurate particulars. The very fact that it had duly mentioned the consideration in the year of receipt itself proves its bona fides. In this regard, we fortify our opinion from the hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Metal Rolling Works Ltd. (supra).
