Revenue submitted that there was no change of opinion as contended by assessee and accepted by the Ld.CIT(A) as assessee has not furnished ‘Project Completion Certificate’ nor furnished the complete details of AOP as pointed out by the AO. It was the submission that the original project has started way back in 1996 and therefore
Impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 without considering the explanation offered by the assessee and without applying his mind. The failure of the Ld. CIT, however, does not constitute any legal infirmity to make the order passed by him under section 263 invalid
The expression HUF must be construed in the sense in which it is understood under the Hindu law HUF constitutes all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters.
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that the company has maintained and submitted separate set of accounts. There was a confusion between the total turnover of the business and total turnover of the undertaking. The Hon’ble Tribunal held that in the proviso to section 10B, there is reference to computation of total income of Undertaking.
Lower authorities have overlooked the principle that the opening balance cannot be disturbed this year. The authorities can only reopen for the earlier year. In another case ACIT Vs. Smt. N. Sasikala (2005) 92 TTJ (Chennai) 119 it was held that If the Department doubted the availability of cash balance, it can go to the concerned assessment year 1990-91
In the present case the Hon’ble Tribunal held that assessee can’t be compared with other companies when they are totally different in functions. Also, the Intellectual property Rights, Brand Value have to be seen while making comparisons under Transfer Pricing.
In the present case the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the Forex gains or losses after the sale receipts would be treated as an amount which will be eligible for deduction under section 10B. On the second issue
According to the learned counsel for the department, the assessee company as per the provisions of section 195(1) was liable to deduct tax at source from the payment made to a non-resident of any sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment
Assesse submitted, the additions made as cash credits being in nature of trade credits on account of purchase of sunflower seeds, thus, are not in the nature of cash credits as envisaged under section 68 and the same therefore cannot be added to the income of the assessee by invoking the said provision.
ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Smt. Cherkuri vs. DCIT concluded that development of commercial complex by the buyer of plot area even if it is approved by the concerned authorities as the part of the project, could not be said to have been developed by the assessee as a part & parcel of the project.
