Moreover, this Appeal is filed from an order rejecting a Misc. Application for rectification. An appeal from an order dismissing a Misc. Application for rectification is not maintainable as held by this Court in the matter of Chem Amit v/s. ACIT reported in 272 ITR 397.
From the above portion, we noticed that the Tribunal has bifurcated the expenditure in two parts – first related to investment of Rs. 5907.18 lakhs in foreign subsidiaries, it was held that the dividend income from such subsidiaries is taxable in India and that therefore, Section 14A would have no applicability. The remaining amount pertain to investment of Rs. 38 Crores [rounded off] made in Indian subsidiaries. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had to its disposal, own interest free funds many times over the investment in question. As per the balance sheet as on 31st March 2005, the assessee had interest free fund of Rs. 929.57 Crores.
Once in a particular trust, some default came to the notice of a trustee managing its affairs and the same trustee is also managing the affairs of other trust then, if the trustee of the second trust voluntarily comes forward before the department and discloses material facts, which have been duly accepted by the department, then it cannot be said that assessee’s conduct was not bona fide or voluntary. It can be said to be a case of concealment only when income comes to the notice of assessee but he still withholds the same from disclosing to the department.
It is well-settled law that merely on the ground of low gross profit ratio, the addition to the assessee’s returned income cannot be made. Even if, the assessee’s profit and loss account is discarded by the Assessing Officer, it has to be examined whether the Assessing Officer adopted the rational basis for making the addition. In the present case, we find that the Assessing Officer merely referred to the discount of 10 per cent. offered by retailers on the printed price but did not demonstrate as to how that affected the gross profit declared by the assessee. He had not brought on record any comparable case, wherein, the net profit declared by a tax payer in the similar business, was higher, than the one declared by the assessee.
Assessing Officer has made all additions, disallowances, treating the cash credits/foreign receipts as well as the assessee’s declared agricultural income merely on estimate and guess work basis without bringing on record any positive and concrete evidence to be applied against the assessee. We also find that the Assessing Officer has not quoted any comparable case in this line of business, which has shown better gross profit than that shown by the assessee in the present assessment year.
The objection of the Revenue that the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act is available to an industrial park only on CBDT notifying the industrial park under Rule 18C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ for short). This the CBDT did only on 5th June 2006. Therefore, according to the Revenue the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in terms of sub-section (4)(iii) thereof would be available as from Assessment Year 2007-08 and not earlier.
The Tribunal found that a tax payer can manage his affairs to reduce tax liability within the frame work of law and that the sale of goods at a lesser price to the sister concerns than to the non-sister concerns, does not violate any provision of law.
The grievance of the revenue is that the mistake ought to have been rectified by filing a revised return of income. The Tribunal held that the time to file a revised return had expired. In any event, it is not disputed that it was a bonafide mistake on the part of the respondent-assessee. In that view of the matter, imposition of penalty was not warranted.
The order impugned before the Commissioner was received by the appellant on 04.09.2010 and the appeal was filed on 11.08.2011. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that there is no provision under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 to condone the delay beyond the period of three months on expiry of the limitation period.
It is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner-Association are authorized by the port authorities constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 to provide such services. It is also not in dispute that without such authorization, such services could not be rendered by them. In fact, the petitioners have produced on record, a licence issued by port authorities authorizing the petitioners to provide such services.
