Despite filing of the stay application, the direction for recovery makes it mandatory for the authority to recover the amount within a period of 30 days after the filing of the appeal even if there is a stay application pending and has not been disposed of. The plea taken is that the proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act does not specify any time limit. In such view of the matter, it is pleaded that the circular overreaches the provisions.
As regards investment made in thandal business, there are no materials seized at the time of search of the assessee’s premises, to make this as a subject matter of block assessment. When the revenue does not dispute the fact that the assessee had been doing the business along with two others, there was no justifiable ground to assess Rs. 27 lakhs at the hands of the assessee.
The instant case relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The Explanation in clause (a) to sub-section (10) of section 80-IB was brought in under Finance No.(2) Act of 2004, effective from 1-4-2005. Thus in the absence of any such requirement under section 80-IB(10), as it stood during relevant assessment year 2004-05, it is difficult to accept the case of the revenue that the claim for deduction has to be rejected on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the completion certificates.
There is no doubt that the authority concerned, who issues the warrant for searches and seizure, ought to have the necessary materials before him to have a reason to believe that an order for search and seizure is warranted. However, it is clear that if certain materials are available before the authority concerned to arrive at his conclusion, then it is not for this Court to examine as to whether there were sufficient materials or grounds to arrive at such a conclusion.
A reading of second proviso to section 10B of the Act thus clearly shows what is contemplated as deemed profits and gains derived from the export of articles or things for the purpose of Section 10B(1) of the Act. Thus, whenever local sales of articles or things does not exceed 25% of the total sale, then the profits and gains derived from the such domestic sales are considered as deemed profits and gains derived from the export of articles or things qualifying for deduction.
When the company had taken lands on 90 years lease with the objects of constructing IT company with all its infrastructural facilities, the same was for the purpose of establishing and providing the amenities required to run, maintain, manage or administer computer centers for manufacturing or processing software packages and/or hardware materials and components required for computer industry, to exploit it as a business proposition. In the facts of these clauses, the order of the Tribunal is to be confirmed, thereby, holding that the lease rentals are assessable as business income only.
As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee, in the decision Radhe Developers’s case (supra), the Gujarat High Court considered the question on ownership as a condition for grant of deduction under Section 80IB(10) in depth and accepted the case of an assessee similarly placed.
As far as instant assessment is concerned, it is a case of individual assessment. The extent of the property sought to be assessed at the hands of HUF was to the extent of 20.88 acres at Alamarathupatti Village. Even though the assessee claimed the property in entirety as HUF property, the partition deed allotted an extent of 4.63 acres alone.
Given the fact that the assessee had acted only as a broker and could not claim any ownership on the sum of Rs. 14.79 crores and that the receipt of the money was only for the purpose of taking demand drafts for the payment of the differential interest payable by Indian Bank and that the assessee had actually handed over the said money to the Bank,
As far as the sale and lease transactions pertaining to BPL Systems and Products Limited is concerned, the Assessing Officer observed that there were discrepancy in the lease rentals paid by lessee and admitted by the assessee in its profits and loss account, which were not reconciled by the assessee. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation.
