HC held that the benefit of Sec 80IB was not available where the assessee had not applied for Factory License before April 1st 2004. How¬ever, HC also clarified that in other cases where the assessee had applied for Factory License before April 1st 2004 but was granted the same later, deduction shall be allowable and such cases shall be treated as mere technical default.
Doshion Ltd. Vs. ITo (Ahmedabad HC)- Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it clearly emerges that the assessment previously framed after scrutiny is sought to be reopened beyond the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has not suggested that such income escaped assessment for the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. In fact the sole ground on which such scrutiny assessment is sought to be reopened beyond 4 years is that by virtue of Explanation to Section 80IA added with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000, income derived from the works contract would not qualify for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.
CIT Vs. Radhe Developers (HC of Gujrat at Ahemdabad)- In the present case, we find that the assessee had, in part performance of the agreement to sell the land in question, was given possession thereof and had also carried out the construction work for development of the housing project. Combined reading of Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would lead to a situation where the land would be for the purpose of Income Tax Act deemed to have been transferred to the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the purpose of income derived from such property, the assessee would be the owner of the land for the purpose of the said Act. It is true that the title in the land had not yet passed on to the assessee. It is equally true that such title would pass only upon execution of a duly registered sale deed. However, we are, for the limited purpose of these proceedings, not concerned with the question of passing of the title of the property, but are only examining whether for the purpose of benefit under Section 80IB (10) of the Act, the assessee could be considered as the owner of the land in question. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), and in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra), the ownership has been understood differently in different context. For the limited purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee had satisfied the condition of ownership also; even if it was necessary.
CIT Vs. Sanjaykumar Mansukhlal Dhabba (Gujrat HC)- In the said case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries [Supra], the Division Bench of this Court upheld the view of the Tribunal limiting the additions to 25%, where it was found that the goods were received from the parties other than the persons who had issued the bills of such goods. Though the purchases were shown to have been made by making payment to some other parties, the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal both came to the conclusion that under such circumstances, the likelihood of the purchase price being inflated could not be ruled out.
CIt Vs. Sayaji Industries Ltd (Gujarat High Court)- There were voluminous records suggesting that the LGDA is not only the sole selling agent of the assessee, but it also does not undertake any other task except to promote the sales of the assessee company. Additionally, the assessee has larger number of customers and the LGDA supports such customers and maintains its agents and branches across the country. In view of such complex set up, between the assessee and the LGDA, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in accepting the entire commission paid to LGDA.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) -Assessing Officer was of the opinion that no part of the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. In fact, after the audit party brought the relevant aspects to the notice of the AO, she held correspondence with the assessee. Taking into account the assessee’s explanation regarding non-requirement of TDS collection and ultimately accepted the explanation concluding that in view of the Board’s circular, tax was not required to be deducted at source. No income had therefore escaped assessment. Despite such opinion of the Assessing Officer, when ultimately the impugned notice came to be issued the only conclusion we can reach is that the Assessing Officer had acted at the behest of and on the insistence of the audit party.
As held in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) entitlement of assessee of any deduction cannot depend on the treatment accorded to such entries by the assessee. And, existence or absence of entries in the books of accounts is not determinative of such claim, but, that is depended on the provision of law that concerns such deduction.
CIT Vs. V R Textiles (Ahmedabad High Court) – On the ground that the entire undisclosed sales could not be treated as profit of the assessee, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. President Industries Limited, [258 ITR 654 (Guj)], it upheld the findings of the CIT [A] which applies the gross profit ratio against the unaccounted sales for the purpose of making additions on account of undisclosed income. The Tribunal also ratified the decision of the CIT [A] in considering the issue of deployment of minimum capital investment for the purpose of making and rotating the sales outside the books of account. For not having found anything contrary to the findings arrived at by the CIT [A] and on cumulatively examining the facts, which were presented before the Tribunal, it upheld the findings of the CIT [A] which applied the gross profit ration as against the undisclosed sales made by the assessee for the purpose of making the additions. Thus, it could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of facts and material on record, it concluded the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It found sufficient material on record to uphold the findings arrived at by the CIT [A] and for so doing, it had given cogent reasons in its order
CIT Vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. (Ahmedabad High Court) – Factually, it found huge funds were available without any interest liability with the assessee and that there was no evidence to hold that the borrowed money was utilized for the purpose of advance to the sister concern. All these aspects cumulatively led the Tribunal to hold that the disallowance made only on the ground that advances were given out of the borrowed funds, holding the assessee ineligible for allowance of interest by the Assessing Officer of the sum of Rs.18.66 lacs was not sustainable.
The Assessing Officer supplied reasons he had recorded for reopening the assessment, which read as under:- “The assessee company filed its return of income on 22.12.2006, declaring total income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) was finalized on 18.06.2008 determining the taxable income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. It is seen that the assessee company had made payment of Rs.21,60,399/- in Foreign Company for purchase of raw materials. However, neither did the company deduct TDS on this amount nor any certificate obtain from the concerned Assessing Officer for non-deduction of TDS. Prasad Koch Technik Tech Pvt Ltd Vs. Versus ACIT (Ahmedabad High Court)
