There was no search carried out on the appellant. The seized papers were found in the possession of Shri Vikas A. Shah. The third person evidence cannot be base for addition on the basis of any entries therein.
We find that we are bound to follow the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘B’ Special Bench rendered in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03. In the said decision rendered in the case of Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (India) Ltd. (supra), the Special Bench has held that 40 percent of deferment of membership fee resorted to by the assessee is justified. The said decision of the Special Bench is rendered in the assessee’s own case in exactly similar circumstances. Therefore, the rule of precedence demands that the decision of the Special Bench must prevail.
In the present case, the Fly Ash Handling System, even though classified under plant and machinery as a general item, is still qualified as a different class under the heading ‘Air pollution control equipment’ entitled for higher amount of depreciation. Therefore, the special category, under which air pollution control equipment is placed, applies to the Fly Ash Handing System installed by the assessee. Its eligibility for higher amount of depreciation will not be shadowed by the general rate provided for plant and machinery.
Oil and natural gas and its exploration are a field of specialized technical knowledge and not for the use of public at large. A specific training is required in the field. The information obtained by the assessee are also of technical nature. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that it contains general information is without any justification.
Bare perusal of the scheme of Chapter XVII-B shows that it mandates the person responsible for paying any sum out of which tax is required to be deducted at source to deduct the requisite amount of tax at source out of the amounts paid/credited by him. Deduction of tax is made out of the amounts paid/credited by the person responsible for paying/crediting the same.
Under the Transfer Pricing Regulations, the number of comparables may be one or more than one; but there is no upper limit prescribed u/s 92C of the I T Act. However, the first proviso to se.92(2) indicates that more than one price can be considered for determination of ALP and in such a case, the ALP shall be taken to be arithmetic mean of such price.
One of the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative that Section 12AA(3) has been amended w.e.f. 01.06.2010 wherein power has been given to cancel registration under section 12A(1) of the Act. In that case the CIT cancelled registration under section 12A of the Act after 01.06.2010, therefore, the fact is different than case under consideration. This contention of the ld. Departmental Representative is not acceptable in the light of above discussions that the CIT cancelled registration under section 12A w.e.f. 2009-10 which is the period prior to 01.06.2010. The C.B.D.T. has also clarified that the amendment in section 12AA(3) is applicable from A.Y. 2011-12.
The hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the amount of depreciation debited to the account of charitable institutions is to be deducted to arrive at an available income from charitable or religious purposes. Following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, we therefore, hold that the depreciation is to be deducted to arrive at an income available to charitable and religious purposes.
The ld. CIT(A) considered the issue in detail in the light of exceptions provided under Rule 6DD in order to grant relief to the assessee for violation of section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The finding of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) to the effect that the assessee was a Pakka Arahtia and made purchases from Kachcha Arahtias have not been disputed by the ld. DR during the course of arguments. It is also not in dispute that the assessee acted as per Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Rules.
Tribunal vide their order dt.12.9.2011 had noted all the facts finding when it was the endeavor of the learned CIT to limit himself to satisfy about the charitable nature of the objects of the Trust and find the genuineness of the activities of the Trust. The undisputed fats are that the learned CIT in the second innings has reiterated that the activities carried out are the same as were before and therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 11 to grant registration u/s.12AA.
