This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ to waive the interest levied under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act for short) pertaining to three consecutive years in respect of which the original Demand had already been paid. The Petitioner has contended that for the Assessment Years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Revenue has raised a demand of Rupees 2,84,546/-, Rupees 6,95,479/- and Rupees 15,23,079/- respectively in regard whereof Demand Notices were served on 30.03.1983, 27.04.1983 and 27.04.1983 respectively.
The activity of marketing agents was brought under the tax net with effect from 1-7-03 when BAS was introduced; same services could not be classifiable under C&F Agent Service for any previous period as the scope of C&F Agent service was not modified when BAS was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994.
If apparently reliable material could not be directly used against an assessee solely because it was not collected during a Search of that assessee, a fortiori, material palpably concerning a third party with no connection with the raided party must be ignored.
In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the findings of Id. CIT(A) that activities undertaken by the taxpayer were in respect of production and export of computer software within the meaning of provisions of section 10B of the Act, especially when the AO himself concluded so for the purpose of section 80HHE of the Act. We are also in agreement with the uncontroverted submission of the Id. AR on behalf of the taxpayer that the taxpayer did not claim any deduction in AY 1996-97 and for the first time claimed deduction u/s 10B in AY 19987-98 and this being the 5th year, claim has to allowed.
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.
Sec.43B can only be invoked when the assessee claims deduction for any sum payable by way of tax or duty, under any law for the time being in force, and, as such, where no such deduction is claimed nor charged made to the profit and loss account, there is no question of disallowing the amount. Having regard to the facts, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under sec.43B.
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
I have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before me and the precedents relied upon. The assessee got share in the house property, as per the WILL of his father He became the joint owner of the property along with his brother. After becoming the joint owner of the said property the assessee sold shares for the purpose of construction of an additional floor in the house for him and the cost to the construction was claimed as exempted under sec 54F.
3. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. Learned Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(Appeals) have given much emphasis on the point whether assessee has committed a default within the meaning of sec. 194-A by not deducting the TDS when interest was credited to the interest provision account, In their opinions, assessee was following mercantile system of accounting
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
