Only aspect mentioned in the reasons recorded is about the requirement of inclusion or non-inclusion of cenvat/modvat credit in closing stock. The Assessing Officer stated in his reasons inter alia that on perusal of break up the loans and advances in the balance-sheet, it was found that the assessee had at the end of previous year a particular amount of cenvat credit not utilised and that the assessee had not credited the said amount to the profit & loss account.
In the present case, there is no unilateral act of the assessee of making any entry in respect of the trading liabilities in its books of account. Therefore, a sine qua non for attracting section 41 in the present case, is that the assessee should have obtained a benefit by way of remission or cessation of a particular amount in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year in question.
It is a undisputed finding of fact that the collected bagasse has been used by the assessee to make briquettes for fuel as that indeed is the business of the assessee. The reliance upon the circular No.772, dated 23-12-1998 by the revenue is misplaced. The aforesaid Circular does not restrict its benefits only to local bodies.
Even though the Tribunal had not given any finding as regards the primary purpose, yet a reading of the order of the Assessing Officer shows that he had considered the clauses in the trust deed to arrive at the finding that the primary objects of the trust are charitable in nature and that the property given was impressed with the character of trust property.
The petitioner has been claiming that he is dealing in hedging besides in the wholesale business of gold and silver ornaments. To insure against price fluctuations, he has been hedging in such metals in MCX. The claim of the assessee, therefore, had to be examined in terms of clause (a) to sub-section (5) to section 43 of the Act. If for some reason such claim was not sustainable,
Undisputedly, the assessee company earned income of Rs. 4,65,00,000/- only by way of Engineering fees. Another amount of Rs 4,65,00,000/- had been received as tooling advance. This latter amount was to be paid to the vendors of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. This payment was a reimbursement.
The tribunal took the view that the addition made was only on the basis of the discrepancy in the TDS Certificate and not on the basis of any finding that some extra charges were received by the assessee, but had not been accounted for.
A reading of Regulation 3 of the CLB Regulations makes it clear beyond any doubt that the Chairman of the CLB is empowered by the Board to constitute the Benches of the Board as per the composition of Benches prescribed under Section 10E (4B) of the Act.
Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act itself provides that the claim for deduction as bad debt would not be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year.
The authority of Court to direct investigation was elaborately considered by us in our earlier decision when we ultimately permitted the Central Government to carry on investigation. The decisions in the case of Sreeman Chunder Dey (supra), Vinay Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Ushacomm India (P.) Ltd. (supra) were considered by us in the earlier decision rendered in the former appeal referred to above.
