In ACIT v. Tripti Menthol Industries, the ITAT, Ahmedabad bench held that Security Guards employed by the assessee-unit must be considered as part of the workers engaged in the manufacturing process for the purpose of giving benefit under Section 80IB(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
These are 11 appeals filed by the Revenue against various impugned orders. As the issue involved in all these appeals are similar and the respondent is same, we take up all these appeals together for disposal. The respondents are registered with the Department for service tax purposes. They have filed refund claims under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-3-2006.
Notice issued under Section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity to contest the same.
Challenging the order dated 3-5-2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, the assessing officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, deriving income from house property, filed its return of income on 18-10-2007, declaring loss of Rs. 1.5 crores. The assessing officer completed the assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, on 4-12-2009, determining its income at Rs. (-)9.46 lakhs.
The Delhi ITAT, in a recent ruling, held that imposing penalty by quoting wrong section would not itself make the entire proceedings invalid if the assessee had not raised any objection during pre-assessment stage and has co-operated with the proceedings.
A full-Bench of the Central Information Commission recently refused to direct the RBI to disclose list of defaulters and non-performing assets, in view of a similar issue being under consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Center for Public Interest Litigation v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., WP(s) (C) No 573/2003.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 14,36,653 which was made by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I. T. Act by treating the purchase are genuine without appreciating the fact that the notices u/s 133(6) issued to the parties were returned unnerved as addressee was not available at the given address.
There is, therefore, nothing to contradict the categorical finding of the ITAT that the document which formed the main basis for initiation of the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act does not belong to the Assessee. One of the principal conditions for attracting Section 153C of the Act is, therefore, not fulfilled in the present case.
They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts may be noted from Special Civil Application No. 2548 of 2016.
In a recent ruling, the Hyderabad ITAT ruled that non- enclosure of audit report to the return of income would not attract penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
