Insofar as the other assessment years are concerned where the issue of limitation of four years does not arise, the position would not be any different. This would be so because on a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of section 80-IC(2) read with serial No. 20 of the 13th schedule of the said Act read with the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
We are of the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal have approached the issue correctly. The question whether the sale of the stock options would result in long term capital gains or short term gains was not very clear at the time when the respondent/ assessee filed his return for the assessment year 2002-03.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that right of consideration in appeal and on an application for waiver of pre-deposit, is a right conferred by the Statute and such right cannot be defeated on the basis of Circular, which contemplates that the recovery can be effected, is stay is not granted within 30 days.
In the present case, we find that the impugned order deals not only with the question of limitation but also with the question of valuation. It so happens that in the present case, the issue with regard to the valuation of the taxable services was decided in favour of the revenue but, because the extended period of limitation was not invokable, as per the Tribunal, the respondent-assessee did not prefer any appeal against the said order.
According to the Tribunal, was a condition precedent for making a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal also held that, in any event, the DVO’s report was based on incomparable sales and, therefore, could not be relied upon. The Tribunal also held that the burden was on the revenue to show that the real investment in the said properties was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the respondent/assessee. The Tribunal held, on facts, that the said burden had not been discharged by the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and found that the reference to the DVO itself was not in accordance with law.
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.
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.
The payment by CRS & Sons Co. Ltd., on the basis of franchise agreement to various persons cannot be treated as payment to Directors who have substantial interest in the company and Section 2 (24) (iv) cannot be invoked.
The contention of the assessee that the payments in question were made to the builder not in the assessment year 2008-2009, but in the earlier years has been rightly rejected by the CIT because, firstly, the payments made in the earlier years if any related to purchase of flat No. B-92 on the 9th floor and not in respect of flat No.A-46 on the 4th floor. If the amounts paid on 07.03.2008 were infact paid in the earlier years, the same would have found place in the agreement dated 07.03.2008.
Learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of this court in CIT v. Ayesha Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 266 (Mad.), wherein in respect of the claim made for the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee claimed the amounts spent on painting, relaying of the damaged floors, partitions, etc., as revenue expenditure. On an appeal before this court by the Revenue, it was pointed out that the assessee incurred expenditure for relaying of the damaged floors, painting and partition in respect of the leased property. Referring to the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468, this court pointed out that the expenditure incurred in respect of the maintenance of the leased premises was deductible as revenue expenditure.
