From perusal of the observation of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has not decided as to for what reasons, the reasons given by the appellate authority ware found to be wrong and virtually it is a non-speaking order, deciding nothing.
If the books of account cannot be rejected, there is no question of not accepting the loss declared by the assessee. In a business, sometimes the business runs in profit and sometimes runs in loss. Merely because in a particular year, the loss was higher, that would not empower the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts, unless some specific defect is pointed out in its maintenance.
We find merit in the submission of Mr. Apte that the order dated 18.10.2012 directing the petitioner to deposit of Rs.35 lacs is non speaking order. The impugned order does not consider and/or examine submission made by the petitioner in support of its prima facie case to take a prima facie view.
With effect from 1st day of July 2003, section 108 of The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 specifically confers power on the High Court to condone delay beyond the period of 180 days, if the High Court is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the same within the said period. Section 108 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 while inserting sub-section (2)(a) in terms provides that sub-section (2)(a) shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from 1st day of July, 2003.
As far as conversion of limestone into limestone powder is concerned, The Apex Court has clearly held that the conversion into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers can legitimately be considered to be a manufacturing process while the mere mining of limestone and marble and cutting the same would not be so considered. The observation of the Supreme Court cannot be termed to be ‘obiter dicta’ since the Supreme Court has held that the process of conversion of limestone into lime and lime dust is a manufacturing process.
Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit inter alia of service tax which is paid on (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacturer of the final product; and (ii) Any input service received by the manufacturer of the final product. The subordinate legislation in the present case makes a distinction between inputs or capital goods on the one hand and input services on the other other.
So far as question (i) is concerned, the respondent assessee has claimed deduction of interest on tax free bonds of Rs.5,60,11,644/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give details of interest on tax free bonds. While preparing the said details, it was noticed that 6% Government of India Capital Index Bonds purchased during the year had inadvertently been categorized as tax free bonds and, therefore, interest of Rs.75,00,000/- earned on such bonds had also inadvertently escaped tax.
In its reply dated 19th June 2012 to the notice dated 26th May 2012 the Respondent has denied any liability whatsoever. It is, inter alia, stated in the reply sent by the Respondent through its counsel that “In the facts and circumstances, please advise your client that my client is not liable to pay any sum of US$ 350,000 or any other amount under the Agreement dated 18.05.2008 as alleged.
Delhi HC upholds deduction claim under Section 80HHC, dismissing penalty. Ruling based on Supreme Court decisions. Full analysis of ITA 47/2013 judgment.
In this view of the matter, we opine that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the Appellate Commissioner was not justified in reversing the view taken by the Assessing Officer and the order of the Tribunal is proper, does not suffer from any error of law and therefore we answer the questions posed in the affirmative to hold that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of deduction even before adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years.
