The AO merely made comparative study of the expenses for the year under consideration with the preceding assessment year and found that expenses incurred in the preceding assessment year were 2.89% on turnover but in the assessment year under appeal it was 4.78% on the turnover.
The Tribunal in the assessee’s appeal considered several grounds titled as “Additional grounds”. However, upon close perusal of such so-called grounds, we notice that such grounds were nothing but legal contentions and arose out of order of CIT(Appeals) which was under challenge
Issue pertains to expenditure of Rs.1.02 crores ( rounded off) expended by the assessee and whether the same should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. For the assessment year 2008-09 the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had debited in the profit and loss account
In the result, we are of the opinion that Section 40(a) (ia) would cover not only to the amounts which are payable as on 31th March of a particular year but also which are payable at any time during the year. Of course, as long as the other requirements of the said provision exist.
We are of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence on record and are purely factual in nature. The Tribunal after taking into account relevant materials, came to the conclusion that a certain rate of gross profit presented by the assessee was acceptable.
The nature of processing of loose cotton into cotton bales after sprinkling water and mechanically pressing the same is similar to processing camphor powder into camphor cubes. Loose cotton in bulk quantity with lighter density is as a result of pressing converted intocotton bales and to that limited extent it certainly undergoes a change.
Such conclusions of the Commissioner (Appeals) were confirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Here also we notice that the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals), as confirmed by the Tribunal, are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record. When two authorities found on facts that no interest bearing funds were directed for making interest-free advances, in our view, no question of law would arise.
The Income Tax Department shall handover the gold jewellery seized by them from the respondent No.2 during the search operation on 25th November, 1988, to the petitioner. This shall be done upon the petitioner approaching the respondent No.1 on 15th October, 2012, between 11.00 to 12.00 hours noon. Such authority shall after verifying the identity of the petitioner and making necessary records, handover such ornaments to the petitioner.
We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, this common issue in the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed.
Counsel for the revenue, however, made faint attempt to contend that even though the order of assessment may not specify charging of interest under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, nevertheless if the computation sheet accompanying such an assessment order includes such demand, the notice for demand may still be valid.
