The next issue for our adjudication is whether sufficient reasons exist for curing defect after expiry of limitation provided under Section 249(2) of the Act. Since, we have held in the upper part of the order that appeal filed in violation of Section 249(4) would be termed as a defective one and the moment defect is cured then those can be disposed of on merit subject to limitation.
One has to examine the stages through which the mash feed is converted into pellet feed. In deciding the issue whether there had been any manufacture of pellet feed. It was to be held that there had been only processing while the production of pellet feed was done by following various stages, namely, (i) batch weighing, (ii) grinding, (iii) mixing, (iv) conditioning with steam, (v) pelleting, (vi) cooling, (vii) crumbling and, finally (viii) packing. The difference between the pellet feed and mash feed, is difference in the quality of the feed and did not throw any light on the manufacture and is of no significance while discussing whether there is manufacture for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-IB.
The Tribunal placed reliance on the Chennai Tribunal ruling in the case of Tweezerman (India) Private Limited v. Addl. CIT, [2010] 4 ITR (Trib.) 130 (Chennai) which ruled that provisions of Section 80-IA(10) of the Act do not give an arbitrary power to the AO to determine the profits of the taxpayer. It is incumbent on the AO to show how ordinary profits were computed based on similar comparable case. The phrase ‘more than ordinary profits’ referred in Section 80-IA(10) of the Act is different from ‘ALP’.
The stand of the revenue with regard to semi-finished condition of the flat is devoid of merit in as much as what is sought to be constructed and sold by the assessee is a residential unit and what is sought to be purchased by the individual buyer is the ownership of a residential unit,
However, it is to be made clear that if no material was found during the search which could show suppression of income, no estimation of undisclosed income of block period by resorting to section 145 could be made. In other words, where there is a material, such an estimation of income can be made. It is not necessary that addition should be limited to what is found during the search.
The making of a new claim if any before the Assessing Officer is required to be done only by way of filing the revised return of income and not by way of letters or by way of filing revised computation etc. But when comes to the Tribunal or for that matter the Commissioner (Appeals), who is also not the Assessing Officer, but who is the appellate authority, assessee does not have to initiate a new claim before them by way of filing the revised return of income.
The CIT(A) however agreed with alternate plea of the assessee that if the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the payments made by the assessee are included by the payees in their returns of income, and taxes have been paid by them thereon, the Assessing Officer may modify the demand raised u/s 201(1).
ITAT held that tax withholding provisions under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are not applicable to payments made by the Indian head office to its foreign branch, as both are ‘residents’ according to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 and the relevant Double taxation avoidance agreement (the tax treaty) between India and the US. Furthermore, sales made by the Indian HO to its foreign branch are eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act and are therefore to be included in the ‘export turnover’ when calculating deduction under section 10A of the Act of the Act.
ITAT held that a right acquired by the taxpayer to convert advance given into equity shares falls under the definition of ‘Capital Assets’ as per Section 2(14) Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act). Accordingly, the compensation received for foregoing right to acquire equity shares is a transfer of ‘Capital Assets’ and is taxable as capital gain under the Act.
the persons who merely execute the civil construction work or any other work contract has been encouraged by giving tax benefits. Thus the provisions of section 80IA shall not apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise referred to in the section but where a person makes the investment and himself executes the development work, he carries out the civil construction work, he will be eligible for the tax benefit under section 80IA
