Tribunal has held that a payment which has direct link and immediate nexus with the trading liability being connected with the delayed purchase payments will not fall within the category of interest as defined in section 2(28A). The payment made by the assessee in the present appeal being of similar nature also cannot be termed as interest as defined under section 2(28A).
There is no dispute to the fact that the eligible business of the assessee is manufacturing of biscuits and the assessee has received the conversion charges by carrying out the manufacturing process on behalf of ITC Ltd. The word ‘manufacture’ is of much wider connotation and would include any process as a result of which a different commodity having distinct name, use and character emerges from the raw material.
The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of U/s. 54F do not require the same sale proceeds to be utilized to claim deduction U/s. 54F.
As far as trade advances are concerned, there is no question of applicability of the provisions of section. 194. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) collected the details of advances categorized into trade advances and processing charges. Though he restricted the applicability of TDS provisions only to cash advances,
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of supply of LPG to its customers. It supplied the LPG cylinders to its customers on lease basis and collected security deposits. The customers can return the cylinders and take back the security deposits. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the customers have returned the cylinders and taken back the security deposits.
In this case as found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings had called for the particulars regarding various items of income going into the computation of deduction under section 80HHC, for which the assessee had given the requisite details and particulars. Now the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to hold that the very same items of receipt has to be excluded in computing relief under section 80HHC. In other words, the Assessing Officer, on a reappraisal of the very same details, which was called for by him and furnished by the assessee, would like to come to a different conclusion. This clearly tantamounts to reopening is merely on a change of opinion.
Assessee filed the return of income on 23.12.2008. The due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration in the case of the assessee is 3 1.10.2008. As such the return filed by the assessee is belated. In this the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the return of the assessee was not filed within the time as prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The assessee has given reasons for delay in filing the return of income that the assessee was preparing its accounts through computer and the computer got corrupted due to viruses and in spite of continuous efforts by the computer technical personnel to retrieve the data in time for filing the return of income, problem persisted in the system.
Section 201(1) uses the expression ‘any person, who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of the Act…..’. Assessee’s stand was that there was no such requirement. As per the provisions of section 194C, an amount has to be deducted out of the sum in pursuance to a contract, at the time of payment/credit towards income-tax on the income comprised therein in terms of section 194C. When a particular sum is not income at all for an assessee, the requirement of making TDS is non-existent.
In instant case, the Assessing Officer had proposed to tax the amount as capital gains, as against the assessee’s claim that the same is not taxable. Accordingly, having recorded the fact that the assessee otherwise qualified for such set off, the set off should not have been disallowed on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income. He maintained that the assessee was well within her right to make claims during the assessment proceedings and it does not amount to filing revised computation.
With regard to the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of agricultural income, the only aspect that clinches the nature of the agricultural income is whether agricultural operations were carried out or not. Once it was established that such agricultural activities were carried out by the assessee, assessee was entitled for exemption in respect of such agricultural income under section 10(1) of the Act, irrespective of any violation of the statutory provisions as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the instant case. Such infraction of the statutory provisions may expose the assessee to the risks of being penalized or punished under the relevant statutes, but the same do not change nature of the agricultural income, and as such, cannot be fatal to the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act.
