Lucent Technologies International Inc. 1(“the assessee”) is a company incorporated in the USA. It is a tax resident of USA. It is a leading supplier of hardware and software used for GSM cellular radio telephone system. The assessee had supplied telecommunications hardware and software to its customers in India through its subsidiary Lucent Technologies India Limited (“LTIL”) (formerly known as AT&T India Private Limited).
40. The accessories and peripherals of computers provide input processing, storage and various output devices. The output devices such as printer, scanner etc. are computer peripherals and form essential parts of PC. These output devices cannot work in isolation and also working on computer system without an output device such as printer would be futile.
6. On the issue as to whether the provisions for warranty liability is deductible for income-tax purposes, a useful reference may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Transformers Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 259, where the Hon’ble Kerala High Court found that the provision for after sales services of transformers on the facts of that case was a reasonable one
14. It is relevant to state the provision of section 10A(4) as applicable to the assessment year, in which the assessee began production with effect from 01.02.1993 and became entitled to get deduction. The relevant section 10A(4) reads as under :- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee
19. As per our considered view, at the time of issue of notice, it is sufficient that prima-facie reasons and material should be with Assessing Officer that there is escapement of some income. At the time of issue of notice the Assessing Officer is not required to conclusively establish that there is escapement of income, mere bona-fide reason to believe that there is escapement of income is sufficient for issue of notice
(ii) where proper enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer and he has followed the principles of natural justice, the order passed by him cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue simply because the ld. Commissioner does not agree with him and he is of the view that addition of a higher amount should have been made;
9. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that a similar issue was involved in assessee’s own case for the earlier years i.e. AY 1991-92, 92-93 & 93-94 and the Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 12.6.1998 has decided the same in favour of the assessee for the said years following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of P.A.V.L. Kulandayan Chettiar
3. We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. We find that evidence exists on record that M/s Ronex International was habitually importing materials from Kaks. It is also a fact that this concern placed an order with the assessee for import of brass and plastic zippers as seen from pages 35 and 36 of the paper book. The Kaks was earlier carrying on the business of export of zippers,
5.6 In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee company has realized service tax on account of providing services and facilities in connection with the exploration or extraction of minerals oils in India. The service tax so realized is a part of receipts received by the assessee from ONGC. The service tax realized by the assessee is in respect of services specified under section 44BB and rendered by it to ONGC
24. The first question arises in these appeals is whether the assessee is bound to account for the profits on the sale of flats in respect of which possession was handed over by the assessee to the buyer, and the amount of consideration was also realized and was also paid directly to the bank. In this case, the ultimate registration of the sale document in favour of the buyer is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the construction of a particular flat is completed and the possession was actually handed over by the assessee to the buyer.
