Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 875 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB - Export incentives - Interest paid in Jajmau unit – Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year, it has been held that the assessment by a higher authority may be possible even if the proceedings were initiated by a subordinate authority who is also having concurrent jurisdiction - assessment proceedings were initiated by the DCIT and the assessment was completed by the JCIT - maximum assessments are framed u/s 143(1) where the AO has issued the intimation after making a prima facie adjustment - Along with the intimation the AO either raises the demand or issues the refund but whenever case falls within the guidelines issued by CBDT, it is to be taken for scrutiny and the assessment is required to be completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and for completing the assessment u/s 143(3), the AO is required to issue a notice u/s 143(2) within a period prescribed u/s 143(2) of the Act - once the authority higher in rank has seized with the matter, the authority lower in rank forfeits its jurisdiction to proceed with the matter in any manner and to complete the remaining assessment. The object/basis for giving that finding, are that once the authority higher in rank seized with the matter pending before the subordinate authority for adjudication, the subordinate authority is ceased with the jurisdiction to proceed further in that matter - The reason for doing so is quite obvious as once the higher authority has started applying his mind to the issue in dispute, the subordinate authority cannot proceed with the matter - If it is not done, there would be chaos in the administration of justice - the DCIT has completed the one mode of assessment by issuing intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and the CIT has initiated and completed the second mode of assessment - assessment by the higher authority may be possible even if the proceedings were initiated by the subordinate authority who is also having concurrent jurisdiction – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against assessee. Deduction u/s 80IB - duty drawback and DEPB benefits – Held that:- Following the decision in Liberty India vs. CIT [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] - receipts by way of duty drawback and DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profits derived from the industrial undertaking – the ground relating to interest debited to Banther unit is concerned, it was pointed out by the assessee that once the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, it would not make any difference even interest was allowed to be debited in the Banther unit. Non-deduction of TDS on payment of commission to Foreign Agent – Held that:- Following the decision in CIT vs. M/s Model Exims [2013 (9) TMI 742 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - AO did not bring anything on record, which could demonstrate that non-resident agents were appointed as selling agents, designers or technical advisers - The payment of commission to foreign agents did not entitle such foreign agents to pay tax in India and thus the TDS was not liable to be deducted under Section 195 of the Act - CIT (A) has considered the admission in the reply of the assessee and has also perused the agreement from which he found that there was nothing, which could demonstrate that these agents were appointed as selling agents, designers or technical advisers for invoking the provisions of Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Act – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|