Whether assessee’s engagement in activities of collection, collation, formatting of data, editing, digital designing etc. can be termed at manufacturing to avail the benefits of section 10B of the Income-tax Act.
It would be incongruous and inappropriate in the context of Section 10B of the Act to hold that the respondent-assessee, an 100% export oriented unit, who had refurbished a mini cement plant in Zambia and established a mini steel mill in Kazakhstan
That once the AO became aware that the property was not owned by the assessee and that he had received the amount on someone else’s behalf, notice could not have been issued under Section 158BD. He urged that this Court should not interfere with the ITAT’s order on this ground alone.
As the only rights to use the know-how and the technology has been granted to the assessee not the ownership of the know-how has been transferred .The ultimate ownership remains with the Honda Motorcycle company Limited.
The assessee’s effort of collection, designing, layout, refining the photographs to make the book ready to print out is manufacturing and the same is also exported outside India so exemption u/s 10B cannot be denied.
Hon’ble High Court is of the opinion that the note written by the AO lacks satisfaction as required u/s 158BD.In other words there is lack of the satisfaction of the AO that there is material that the respondent assessee had undisclosed income.
Hon’ble Delhi Court in the matter Spice Entertainment (ITA no. 475/2011) give finding on the proposition that completion of assessment in respect of a non-existent company due to the amalgamation would result assessment in the name and in respect of the original assessee company,
While Section 68 certainly enables the AO to bring to tax amounts which are suspect, in a transaction of the present kind, where the identity and the relationship of the donor are known, the AO in our opinion ought not to have concluded that the transaction – by which the assessee received the amount of Rs. 1,84,860/- was ingenuine.
Revenue has to be vigilant in issuing notice to the third party under Section 158 BD, immediately after the completion of assessment of the searched person, this Court is of the opinion that a delay ranging between 10 months of 1 ½ years cannot be considered contemporaneous to assessment proceedings.
The assessee contended that the note was antedated and is accordingly not valid. He tried to substantiate his argument by demonstrating the following: If the satisfaction note was recorded on 29th Aug., 2002
