8. A bare perusal of the ground raised by the assessee, in impugned M. A. reveals that the same pertain to the issues adjudicated by the Bench, on merit, after evaluating the rival submissions, including case laws relied upon by the parties, and the relevant records. The issues considered and decided on merit after due application of mind by the Bench
6. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the orders. The short question here is whether credits for tax paid as provided in section 115JAA of the Act has to be given before charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B or after charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, in the later years, when such credit is claimed. Even, before the substitution of Explanation 1
7. We have considered the issue. The learned CIT (A) has considered that there was a change of opinion by the A.O. and he deemed to have formed an opinion at the time of original assessment on allowing 80HHC deduction on DEPB. There is nothing on record to support the opinion formed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue. The learned counsel during the present proceedings
If the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is sustainable on any of the reasons taken by the Assessing Officer, the initiation of reassessment cannot be declared as invalid; there cannot be any initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of an item of income or disallowance which has been made in another proceedings of the same assessee for the same year.
12. Under the provisions of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer has the power to reassess the income for any Assessment Year where he has a reason lo believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any Assessment Year. The power is also given to Assessing Officer to recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance for the Assessment Year
13. After hearing both the parties, we do not find merit in the appeal of the revenue on this issue for the reasons given hereafter. The question for adjudication is whether the sum of Rs. 42,09,874/-represen ting the payment of salary to the engineers at Head Office in respect of the work done by them vis-a-vis the Halida Project in India can be considered as head office expenses for the purpose of section 44C of the Act
7.4 The reconstruction of a business or an industrial undertaking must necessarily involve the concept that the original business or undertaking is not to cease functioning, and its identity is not to be lost or abandoned. The concept essentially rests on changes but the changes must be constructive and not destructive. There must be something positive about the whole matter as opposed to negative
10. The first issue is to be decided before us is the interpretation of the phrase “Housing Project” which is contemplated in Section 80IB (10) of the Act. There is no definition of the term `Housing Project’ given either in the Section 80IB or in the Act itself. But so far as Section 80HHBA which provides for a deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the execution of the Housing Project
9. The first item of receipt is that of Rs.5.010 crores towards assignment of marketing rights for local as well as export business. The Assessing Officer held it to be a revenue receipt liable to tax. At this juncture, it will be relevant to consider the distinction between the revenue and capital receipt in the context of the nature of transaction we are concerned with. Albeit there is no conclusive test for drawing
13. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as above cited judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co (India) Ltd (supra). The case of the assessee is that the said subscription of Rs 3 lakhs is wholly and exclusively for the business purpose. On the other hand, the case of the revenue is that the unlike in company
