The AO has noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company had vide a letter dated 4/3/2002 voluntarily offered for taxation by disallowing a sum of Rs. 15,54,260/-. In view of the said voluntary offer, the impugned amount was added back to the income of the assessee. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, it was held that the impugned amount was offered for taxation and it was not a case of mistaken impression of law, therefore, in the absence of any other material, the action of the AO was upheld.
Assessing Officer has observed that in response to show-cause notice issued to the assessee specifying the defects noticed in M/s. Agrawal Enterprises, the assessee has simply escaped by saying that it is not their mistake if the seller did not show the cash sales in their books of account. It was further observed by the Assessing Officer that on verification of the copies of account furnished by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed to have made cash purchase from M/s. Agrawal Enterprises during the period October 22, 2004 to December 31, 2005 however, verification of the contra confirmation filed by M/s. Agrawal Enterprises, it was noticed that they had not shown such cash in their account.
The hon’ble Ahmedabad Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Well Pack Packaging v. Deputy CIT reported at [2003] 78 TTJ (Ahd) 448 has held that revaluation of depreciable assets and conversion of a partnership firm into company does not lead to incidence of capital gain inasmuch as revaluation is made in the hands of the assessee by writing up the value of assets in the books. In view of the provisions of sections 575, 576 and 577 of the Companies Act, 1956, there is no transfer involved when a company got itself registered under Part IX of the Companies Act. In view of this, there is no question of applicability of the provision of section 45 or 50 or any other provisions of the Income-tax Act arise on conversion of a firm into company.
In the instant case, the interest is payable in respect of amounts deposited by financial institutions with the assessee by subscribing to the bonds issued by the assessee. The interest is payable in respect of certain deposits received by the assessee and not in respect of any loans, advances or borrowings made by the assessee. For the same reason, clause (e) of section 43B relating to loans and advances from a scheduled bank is also not applicable in the instant case.
Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act authorizes the A.O. or the CIT (A) to levy penalty in case of concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation 1 to A sec.271(1)(c) of the Act specifies as to when the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation so offered is found to be false or the explanation is not proved and when the explanation is not bona fide to treat the same as deemed concealment of income.
There was no search carried out on the appellant. The seized papers were found in the possession of Shri Vikas A. Shah. The third person evidence cannot be base for addition on the basis of any entries therein.
It was wrong on the part of the AO to hold that the assessee has merely acted as a contractor. By analyzing the nature of work executed by the assessee, it can be gathered that the assessee had acted as a developer. The assessee has undertaken the responsibility of execution of the work. The assessee has developed its own design and on getting approval applied the technology for completion of infrastructure facility.
In the present case, we find that the assessee uses various materials like flour, ghee, oil etc. for the production of various items. The production is done by following a particular set process. The various raw materials when consumed lose their individual and independent identity and a different and new product comes into existence.
Now, we examine the MOU between India and US. As per this MOU, regarding para 4(b) of Article 12 of India US DTAA, it was provided that there will be no FTS if technology is not made available to the person acquiring the services. It was also specified that technology will be considered “made available” when the person acquiring the services is enabled to apply the technology.
‘Let us assume that Mr. ‘A’ purchases a machine which is very much required by him for his business purpose but for such acquisition of machine by him, he paid some extra price as per the A.O. This is not the case of the A.O. that using of machine for business purpose is not the main purpose of acquiring of machine and in that situation, in our humble opinion, the A.O. cannot invoke Exp.(3) to Section 43(1) of the Act.
