CIT-DR has contended that compensation should be regarded as normal business receipt received in the normal course of business, we find that the same had not been received in lieu of undertaking any negative covenants not to compete with Schneider in India but on the contrary the assessee continues to carry on the same line of business.
No material whatsoever was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to the effect that the payment of Rs. 1,20,00,000 was for the assessee not to engage in any business. Even so, the Assessing Officer opined that the compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000 was not a capital receipt liable to capital gains, but was a business receipt falling under “business income” and that rather, the “compensation” was for not carrying out any activity in relation to the business of the Company, which was taxable under section 28(va).
Admittedly, vehicles have been taken under a finance lease arrangement and not under operational lease, Article 2.2 of the agreement entered into by assessee with LPIN provides for arrangement for the registration & insurance of the vehicles and inter alia, stipulates that vehicles shall be insured and registered in the name of the client, i.e., the assessee as required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Thus, the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new plant and machinery in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right. Law does not prohibit that balance 50% will not be allowed in succeeding year.
The reliance placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (supra) is well placed as the expenditure incurred by the assessee has direct nexus with its income generating apparatus. Respectfully following various judgments mentioned and relied on by CIT(A) we see no infirmity in his order, which is upheld. The assessee’s cross objection being only in support of CIT(A) order, is rendered infructuous.
in this case Ld.CIT(A) has in fact restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-consideration and verification from the bank about the amount of actual cessation which amounts to setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, and such action is beyond the powers confirmed upon the Ld.CIT(A) while dealing with appeal. So, action of the CIT(A) to this extent being not justified is set aside.
It is clear that for invoking the proviso to section 147 beyond the period of four years, there must be failure on the part of the assessee to either make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice under section 147/148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year.
As is apparent from the aforesaid observations in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without even analyzing the issues or recording his specific findings on the said issues raised in the grounds of appeal before him . A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice, namely, that every judicial/quasi- judicial body/authority must pass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind by the concerned authority to the issues/points raised before it .
Plain reading of provisions of section 11(2)(b) lays down that 85 per cent of the income is to be applied to charitable purposes or set apart and the moneys accumulated or set apart can be invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5). Clause (x) of sub-section (5) to section 11 prescribes one of the modes of investment as ‘investment in immovable property’.
It thus remains an undisputed fact that no addition has been made on the reasons recorded for reopening the completed assessment. Now, what is to be seen is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, since no addition has been made on the reasons recorded, no reasons for reopening the completed assessment survive and, consequently, the completed assessment could not have been reopened, or whether in spite of no addition having been made qua the reasons recorded, those reasons still survive and the reopening on the basis of those reasons is in order, as maintained by the department.
