18. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders, decisions and judgments and provisions of the Income-tax Act. From the facts, it is noticed that the objection of the revenue is with regard to the assessee’s failure to follow the AS-15 and the ‘actuarial method’ referred therein and not disputed the quantification of the ‘provision of gratuity. In other words, the incorrect quantification of the provision
7. The scope of section 263 has been determined by the propositions pro-founded by the Hon’bie Apex Court as well as other courts. For the revenue, an incorrect assumption of fact, incorrect assumption of law, failure to or routinely to conduct investigation in to the issue together with the ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are the approved grounds for assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263
10. Section 194C relating to `payment to contractors and sub-contractors’ and relevant provisions read as under:- “194C(1)Any person responsibility for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and –
The contention of the assessee regarding allowability of foreseeable loss is accepted in principle, However, the issue is restored to the file of AO for the purpose of quantification and calculation of the said loss in terms of Accounting Standard -7, as the same has not been done.
12. The provisions of sections 80IB/80IA are the code by themselves as they contains both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Therefore, we need to examine what these provisions prescribe to the issue of the manner of `computation of the profits and gains of the eligible business’. In this regard, the relevant sub-sections ie 80-IB(l), 80-IB(13) & 80-IA(5) of the said sections are important and they are reproduced here under for ready reference.
6. We have verified the orders and heard:the rival contentions. There is no dispute that there was a qualification in the auditors report whereby the auditors had mentioned Rs.27,47,258/ – as the adjustment required u/s. 145A of the Act for the purpose of valuing the closing stock. Copy of the computation statement for the relevant Assessment Year filed by the assessee show that it had made a suo motu addition
9. Part A of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) provides that if assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers and explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false. This explanation can therefore, be applied only where the assessee has either not offered any Explanation or where he has offered any Explanation
15. Therefore, in our view, the issue involved in the present appeals is essentially a question of fact and once this question is answered, the application of appropriate legal principles should not present much difficulty. We find considerable strength in the submission of the assessee that facts in its case were distinguishable from those in the case of Shambhu Investments (supra)
15.2 On a careful reading of section 6(1) alongwith the circular cited above we are of the considered opinion that where the individual is resident in the previous year, but was not a resident in India in 9 out of 10 previous years preceding the year or was in India for a total period of 730 days or more in seven previous years then his residential status will be that of resident but not ordinarily resident
21. In view of the above submissions of the assessee and in view of the fact that M/s.Sky Blue Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. is sister concern of the assessee, we find no merit in the contentions of the assessee that the transaction between the assessee and M/s.Sky Blue Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. fell through because of the non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding
