It would be incongruous and inappropriate in the context of Section 10B of the Act to hold that the respondent-assessee, an 100% export oriented unit, who had refurbished a mini cement plant in Zambia and established a mini steel mill in Kazakhstan
S. 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only when the two conditions, namely, that tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted is satisfied. Where tax is deducted by the assessee under a wrong provision of TDS and there is a shortfall, s.40 (a) (ia) disallowance cannot be made.
That once the AO became aware that the property was not owned by the assessee and that he had received the amount on someone else’s behalf, notice could not have been issued under Section 158BD. He urged that this Court should not interfere with the ITAT’s order on this ground alone.
As the only rights to use the know-how and the technology has been granted to the assessee not the ownership of the know-how has been transferred .The ultimate ownership remains with the Honda Motorcycle company Limited.
The hospital had hired the doctors i.e professionals for their expertise, experience, and skill in the profession and requests them to be associated with the hospital, then their engagement cannot be said to be of employer-employee relationship.
Hon’ble High Court relied on the decision of Cocanada reported in 57 ITR 306 and Sasoon V/s CIT in which it was held that carry forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against the capital gain from sale of depreciable asset.
The assessee’s effort of collection, designing, layout, refining the photographs to make the book ready to print out is manufacturing and the same is also exported outside India so exemption u/s 10B cannot be denied.
Hon’ble High Court is of the opinion that the note written by the AO lacks satisfaction as required u/s 158BD.In other words there is lack of the satisfaction of the AO that there is material that the respondent assessee had undisclosed income.
Interest free loan given by the assessee society to another society with identical object cannot be treated as investment or deposit in which event there is no violation of section 13(1)(d) row’s. 11(5) of the Act.
Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the illness of husband offered by one of the assessee Mrs P.S Rajeshwari was untenable.The tribunal further pointed out that plea of illness between November,2010 and November 2013 and sudden regaining of health was not supported by evidence.
