Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (4) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... report cannot be read in evidence against the assessee-company. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order allowed the carry forward of the business losses which was also allowed by him in A.Y. 2010-2011. It would mean that assessee-company was doing manufacturing/ business activity. Therefore, all these matters clearly support the contention of Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the matter should be re-investigated by the A.O. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes - ITA. Nos. 844 & 845/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member For Assessee : Shri Rakesh Gupta Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocates For Revenue : Shri V.K. Jiwani, Sr.D.R. ORDER Both the appeals by the assessee are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry was conducted at the time of survey itself which revealed that the factory was not in operation for last 4-5 years. (3) Books of account etc., were not found in the premises of the assessee but in the nearby premises of M/s. Sarasvati Dynamics Pvt. Ltd., which is doing the same type of business (4) Plant and machinery of the assessee was not found in working condition. (5) Statement of Shri Vipul Aron, Director of the Company was recorded. It was submitted that there was water logging in the factory premises and since July, 2008, factory is closed and no business is going on. 3.1. The A.O, therefore, noted that assessee-company did not have adequate amount of plant and machinery to carry out any manufacturing activity. The In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The assessee challenged these additions before Ld. CIT(A). The written submissions of the assessee-company is reproduced in the appellate order in which the assessee has briefly explained that survey was done prior to close of the financial year. Therefore, it is not related to assessment year under appeal. The assessee-company maintained the sales tax return documents and excise return documents to show manufacturing activity done by assessee-company. The Ld. CIT(A) in A.Y. 2009-2010 allowed the carry forward of the business losses. The assessee-company produced sufficient evidence in support of the claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), however, held that assessee- company was not doing any manufacturing activ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vember 2008 because of the natural calamities. The production of all the documents were produced by the assessee company before the Assessing Officer related to the business of the assessee to the government organization till September 2006. These documents has categorically revealed that the very foundation of the Assessing Officer s order was not justified as the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2006-07 has made a clear findings that the assessee has purchased digital powers sub assemblies for which invoice has been raised by M/s Saraswati Dynamics Pvt. Ltd dated 8/3/2006 at page 8 para 8 of the assessment order. Thus the sub assemblies cannot be termed as the amplifier as a whole. In the same para, the Assessing Officer mentione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ders of the authorities below and submitted that Income Tax Inspector visited the factory premises and found no manufacturing activity done by the assessee-company. He has relied upon decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. ACE Multi Excise System Ltd., 2017-TIOL-452 in which it was held that if the assessee was initially entitled to Section 80IB benefits as eligible undertaking for 10 years, it would not continue to be eligible for such benefit if it no longer satisfies eligibility conditions by virtue of its extension. 7. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the A.O. The assessee-company claimed that since its inception it is granted d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates