|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 692 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 704 - ITAT DELHI
TDS u/s 194C - payment made by the assessee is under a contract to the contract workers - additions in the remand proceedings - as submitted by the assessee that the assessee sold seeds to farmers by raising invoices and, thereafter purchased the multiplied potatoes against invoice. The agreement was entered into to prevent the farmers from selling the multiplied seeds to other parties. The company was not making any payment in the nature of job work - HELD THAT:- The assessee in order to facilitate the proper production had advanced the amount to the farmers by way of seeds and cash in advance. The cost of seed and the amount so advanced have been adjusted against the sale proceeds. The conclusion of the AO that the farmer has to produce the potatoes seeds of desired size, in our considered opinion, is not correct. The growing of potatoes is a natural process. The size of potatoes depends upon the nature of land, the quantity of manures and fertilizers added, the quantity of water and the nature of the beds raised whether they were compact or porous enough to allow the size of potatoes to grow freely. The operations carried out by the farmers are purely agricultural operations. They cannot be by any stretch of imagination be said that they were in the nature of work contract.
The assessee had entered into agreement with the farmers to prevent them from selling the seeds so grown in the open market. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of section 194C are not applicable in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia).
Expenditure claimed on labour charges - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - certain payments were made by the assessee to labour contractors against the supply of labour for harvesting, grading and packing, etc. The assessee-company could not furnish confirmations of labour charges - HELD THAT:- AO disallowed the payment on the presumption that the payment was made to the contractors and the assessee had kept the payments below Rs.20,000 deliberately in order to circumvent the provisions of section 194C. If the payment has been made to a contractor, the payer has to deduct tax at source on even amounts less than Rs. 20,000. There is nothing on record to suggest that the payments on account of labour charges were made to contractors. On the contrary the assessee had made payment to labourers directly.
Therefore, the provisions of section 194C are not applicable. The AO had made disallowance on ad hoc basis out of total labour charges - Since no material has been brought on record, in our considered opinion the AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). Accordingly, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition.
Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 703 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ered by the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench rendered for the preceding assessment year 1987-88 in the assessee s own case through its order dated February 16, 2010. Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal passed for the assessment year 1987-88, we hold that the order of the Assessing Officer reopening the assessment for the impugned assessment year 1988-89 is bad in law and, therefore, set aside. As the reopening of the assessment has been held to be without juris- diction and been set aside, the appeal filed by the Revenue becomes infruc- tuous and therefore, liable to be dismissed. As these appeals have been decided on the ground of jurisdiction itself, the other grounds raised on contentions of merit have become academic and, therefore, not considered. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous. The order pronounced on Thursday, the 13th May, 2010, at Bangalore.
-
2010 (5) TMI 702 - ITAT DELHI
Employees' contribution to provident fund - allowable as deduction - HELD THAT:- the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] according to which contribution to employees' State insurance is allowable as deduction if the same is paid before the due date of filing the return. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] following the aforesaid issue the hon'ble apex court has held that the employees' contribution to provident fund would be allowed if the same is paid before the due date of filing return.
Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the order of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2010 (5) TMI 701 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Whether the determination by the respondent No.2 that the Industrial Undertaking of the petitioner at Hariyala is liable to be assessed at 60% of the consumption charges of electricity and for which no reason have been given and hence the said determination is void, illegal and have no legal effect?
Held that:- The respondent authorities are not justified in collecting/adjusting and/or enforcing the recovery of electricity duty at the rate of 60% by reclassifying the electrical energy consumed by the petitioners for their activities.
As per the definition of “industrial undertaking” given in Section 2(bb) of the Act, the petitioners' activities fall within the ambit of this definition. The Government of India in exercise of power conferred by Sections 5 and 7 of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 has made Rules known as Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. The Rule-2, Sub-clause-xxv defines the expression 'manufacturing of gas' which means filling of a cylinder with any compressed gas and also includes transfer of compressed gas from one cylinder to any other cylinder.” Thus, filling of LPG Gas Cylinder is evidently a process of manufacture and, therefore, the petitioners are Industrial Undertakings consuming high tension energy as provided by Section-3(1) and Clause 5(a) of the Schedule to the Act and as such the respondents had initially correctly levied duty at 20% of the consumption charges. Appeal allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 700 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether in the absence of one-to-one co-relation Appellant is liable to pay Modvat/Cenvat involved on raw material destroyed in fire?
Whether the Tribunal has failed to pass a Speaking Order?
Held that:- In the present case, it is on record that the Assessee has not received amount of Cenvat Credit involved on inputs, as compensation from the Insurance Company. It means, Assessee has borne loss of goods incident. It is undisputed fact that the Appellant has paid duty on inputs at the time of purchase of goods. The Assessee took credit and utilized the same for the payment of duty on finished goods. There is no one-to-one co-relation between the inputs and finished goods. In the absence of one-to-one co-relation, it is unjustified to ask the Assessee to reverse the credit which has already been utilized for the payment of finished goods. Thus the Assessee is not liable to pay duty equivalent to amount of Cenvat Credit availed on inputs and therefore question No. 1 is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee.
As far as the second question of law is concerned, a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it is a speaking order. Hence, this question is also decided against the Revenue
-
2010 (5) TMI 699 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, (APPEALS), LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... xcisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. As per definition of sale, a transaction is recognized as sale only when it is realized or can be quite easily realized meaning the seller has realized or has a high chance of realizing payment against delivery of goods. In case of export, goods are treated as sold only when they leave the shores of India and the exporter realizes payment (through letter of credit) after producing proof of goods having left the shores of India. In case of export goods, therefore, the place of removal has been held to be port of export and hence, credit of service tax paid on GTA services used for transportation upto port of export is admissible. As Cenvat credit on the such GTA service is admissible, there is no question of demand of interest or imposition of penalty. 9. In view of foregoing discussions and findings, I pass the following order. ORDER 10. I allow the Appeal filed by the Appellant for the reasons cited supra.
-
2010 (5) TMI 698 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of payment to Retired Partners and subscription fees - payments paid to retired partners and to spouses/nominees of deceased partners in terms of clause 22 of the partnership deed - AO noted that the assessee had excluded from the business income a sum being the amount paid to ex-partners and spouses of deceased partners - assessee has explained that the retired partners and the spouses of deceased partners were entitled to certain payments as per Clause – 22 of the partnership deed as computed as per Clause – 23A and 23B - HELD THAT:- Various factors mentioned in clause – 22 above, a retiring partner or spouse or nominee of a deceased partner is entitled to certain payments specified in clause 23A & 23B. These clauses provide that retiring partners and spouse/nominee of deceased partners are entitled to receive payments @20% of their shares on the date of retirement in future profits of the firm for certain number of years depending upon the length of service rendered. Further the clause 28 provides that the payments mention in clause 22 shall be a prior charge on the receipts of the firm.
The case of the assessee is that the payments made as per clause – 22 are a prior and overriding charges on the receipts of the firm and, therefore, these are diversion of income by overriding title and thus are required to be excluded from the profit. We respectfully following the decision of assessee own case as relying in the case of Sheetal Das Tirathas [1960 (11) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] as held that in case, by some obligation, income is diverted before it reaches the assessee the amount is deductible . The Tribunal after considering clause 22, 23 and 28 of the partnership deed held that there was an obligation in this case and income diverted before it reached the assessee and it was not a case of application of income. The Tribunal also observed that the revenue authorities had allowed the said deduction from the year 1990 onwards and, therefore, could not make any deviation in the subsequent year the factual and legal position remaining the same. The Tribunal accordingly held that the deduction was allowable.
Interest on borrowed funds advanced to the sister concern - said concern had utilized the loan for taking office premises on lease - A.O observed that though the assessee was a partner in the sister concern but the expenditure relating to the sister concern could not be allowed as deduction - deduction of interest has been claimed under the head “business” against the “ other source” allowed by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- The assessee had also received interest of Rs.24,68,079/- from the sister concern and the interest paid is only Rs. 23,15,275/-. The CIT(A) has held that interest income received has to be treated as income from other sources and the claim of interest payment of Rs. 23,15,275/- has to be allowed as deduction u/s 57(iii). We see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), in allowing the deduction as the A.O has not disputed the fact that borrowed funds had been utilized for advancing to sister concern from which the assessee had received interest and, therefore, interest expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be allowed as a deduction.
Claim of deduction under the head “business” as reasonable as the loans had been advanced to the sister concern in which the assessee had deep interest to be used for the business of the sister concern. The loan was therefore on commercial expediency and interest income has therefore to be treated as incidental business income and claim of deduction of interest has to be allowed under the head “business”. The order of CIT(A) is upheld with modification as mentioned.
Allowability of interest expenditure - HELD THAT:- As we have already held that loan had been advanced to sister concern on commercial expediency and, therefore, interest income as well as interest expenditure have to be considered under the head “business”. Accordingly we hold that interest expenditure has to be allowed under the head “business
Disallowance of various expenditure - bills in the name of sister concern of assessee - items of expenditure disallowed related to publication of quarterly flash, foreign travel, preparation of name plates, reimbursement of part of expenditure relating to an employee sent on deputation - HELD THAT:- There is no material produced by revenue to controvert the claim made by the assessee that the publication of quarterly newsletter was by the assessee and there is also no dispute that the expenditure had been incurred by the assessee. Similarly the foreign travel expenditure had been incurred by the assessee.The assessee had also given the name of the client for which the foreign travel had been undertaken by Shri Farid and no material has been produced by the revenue to disprove the claim of the assessee. Therefore, mainly on the ground that the bill was in the name of the sister concern the claim cannot be disallowed.
As regards the employee Shri Girish, there is no dispute that the he was an employee of the assessee who had been deputed to the sister concern and the amount not paid by the sister concern had been reimbursed by the assessee. The claim in our view has to be allowed on commercial expediency. In so far as the expenditure on preparation of name plate is concerned, there is common bill in relation to three parties and the assessee had paid its share of expenditure. The CIT(A) has allowed Rs.8000/- on the ground that the assessee paid Rs. 8000/- only. However, we find that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.8840/- as per voucher placed - The entire claim is thus allowable . We therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the additions made in respect of all items.
Computation of remuneration to working partner allowable as deduction under section 40(b)(v) - A.O had also excluded the share of profit of the firm in the other firms appearing in the P&L Account while computing remuneration allowable on the ground that the said income was exempt in the hands of the assessee under section 10(2A) - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decisions in the case of S.P. Equipment & Services [2009 (9) TMI 637 - ITAT JAIPUR-A] we hold that various item of income assessed as income from other sources and excluded from the purview of book profit computation have to be included while computing the remuneration allowable as deduction. The order of CIT(A) is accordingly set aside on this point and the claim of the assessee is allowed.
A.O had also excluded the share of profit of the firm in the other firms appearing in the P&L Account while computing remuneration allowable on the ground that the said income was exempt in the hands of the assessee under section 10(2A). There is no dispute that such income is exempt in the hands of the assessee u/s. 10(2A). Therefore, remuneration allowable proportionate to such income which is exempt has to be disallowed under section 14A. Such income has either to be excluded from the book, profit or incase it is included in the book profit then remuneration allowable as computed in the section 40(b)(v) in relation to such exempt income has to be disallowed. In this case the A.O has excluded the share of profit from other firm from the book profit which had the effect of disallowing the remuneration allowable proportionate to such exempt income. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in such approach as expenditure relatable to exempt income has to be disallowed. The order of CIT(A) on this point is confirmed.
Computation of interest chargeable u/s 234B - whether the interest payable under section 234B has for the purpose of section 140A is to be computed with respect to the tax payable on the returned income or the income determined in the regular assessment? - HELD THAT:- We find that the section 140(1B) provides that interest payable under section 234B, has to be computed on the amount by which the advance paid falls short of assessed tax and the assessed tax for the purpose of this sub-section has been defined in the Explanation to mean the tax on total income as declared in the return as reduced by tax deducted/collected at source etc. Therefore, we agree with the submission made by ld. A.R that the interest payable under section 234B for the purpose of adjustment against the tax paid under section 140A has to be computed with respect to assessed tax determined on the basis of total income declared in the return. But this is only for the limited purpose of adjustment of payment made u/s. 140A against interest payable under section 234B while making computation of interest payable by the assessee under section 234B,which has to be computed with respect to the total income determined in regular assessment as per the definition of assessed tax given in section 234B. The assessee has also followed the same procedure with which we agree
Both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas those of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 697 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Computation of business income - choosing the system of accounting - Addition made on the basis of percentage of completion method as per revised Accounting Standard-7 (AS-7), the assessee is engaged in the business of builder and developer - CIT(A) held that it is AS-9 that is applicable to the case of the assessee
HELD THAT:- As undisputed appellant is a developer and not a contractor. A reading of section 145 of the Act shows that the business income which is assessable under the income Tax Act is to be computed in accordance with the consistent system of accounting followed by the assessee unless such system of accounting is defective and /or from such system of accounting, profit cannot be deduced. Thus, in our considered opinion, the option for choosing the system of account is with the assessee and not with the Learned Assessing Officer provided the system chosen by the assessee is consistently followed by him and such system is not a defective system
Provisions of AS-7 cannot override the provisions of section 145 in so far as the computation of business income under the Income Tax Act for the purpose of determining assessable income is concerned. A reading of section 145 of the Act shows that the business income which is assessable under the income Tax Act is to be computed in accordance with the consistent system of accounting followed by the assessee unless such system of accounting is defective and /or from such system of accounting, profit cannot be deduced.
We find that AO has brought no material on record to show that the system of accounting adopted by the assessee for the year under appeal was not consistently followed by the assessee or the system adopted was a defective system. In our considered view, even a project completion method is also a recognised system of accounting. Simply, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has recommended percentage completion method does not mean that project completion method if consistently followed by the assessee, the same is not a bonafide system of accounting or the same is a defective system of accounting.
The CIT (A) has recorded a finding after perusing the assessment records of the subsequent years that the assessee has offered for taxation its income in the subsequent year as per the consistent system of accounting followed by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the CIT (A) and therefore, the same is upheld and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 696 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, KOLKATA BENCH
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... t intending to lease out the asset, in case the Bench held the case of the petitioners as correct in the final order. 14. In view of the above reasons, this Bench is of the opinion that the restraint order passed by the Principal Bench need not be interfered with as the reasons given in this order are fortifying the order dated January 12, 2010. 15. Hence, the application filed for modification is hereby dismissed directing the petitioners herein to file their rejoinder within 15 days after supply of copies as mentioned in C.A. No. 25 of 2010 connected with C.P. No. 1 (Kol.) of 2010 and C.A. No. 26 of 2010 connected with C.P. No. 2 (Kol.) of 2010 (Blancatex AG v. AI Champdany Industries Ltd. 2011 164 Comp. Cas. 98 (CLB - Kol.)) and submit their arguments in the main petition within one month thereafter, failing which the order dated January 12, 2010, stands cancelled because the petitioners are not supposed to continue for a long period under the umbrella of an interim order.
-
2010 (5) TMI 695 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of mismanagement. ... ... ... ... ..... arties that is the subject-matter of the company petition and the same ought not to be adjudicating upon in a dismissal application. The alleged transfer had taken place more than 17 years ago. There is gross inaction and negligence on the part of the respondents/petitioners which remains besides inordinate delay in bringing the matter before the Board. There is no justification for condonation of delay and latches on the part of the petitioners before the CLB. 31. In view of the foregoing, Company Application No. 357/2007 is hereby-allowed. The Company Petition No. 88/2007 is hereby dismissed being non-maintainable, the petitioners having failed to prove their locus having the requisite membership qualification under section 399 of the Act. No order as to cost. The applicant is entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 1 lakh deposited with the CLB by the respondents/petitioners. Bench Officer to deliver the cheque for Rs. 1 lakh and also for the amount of accrued interest thereon.
-
2010 (5) TMI 694 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI BENCH
Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of oppression.
... ... ... ... ..... incorporation. However, the issue relating to the appointment of members on the Board is concerned, the General Body of the company is the competent body to take decision in respect of directorship. Hence, the issue is answered accordingly. To what relief ? 40. To determine the entitlement of reliefs as pressed by the petitioners the issues that emerged for consideration have been dealt with in detail in preceding part. In view of my findings/answers the petitioners are not entitled to reliefs as prayed for. The petition was filed under section 39 /398 and various other provisions of the Act alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement. After a detailed and marathon enquiry in the matter, I find and conclude that the petitioners have not made out any ground either on oppression or mismanagement in the affairs of the company. The petition is miserably failed and liable to be dismissed. Hence, the CP is dismissed. All the interim orders stand on this date are vacated.
-
2010 (5) TMI 693 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI BENCH
Transfer of shares - Rectification of register on ... ... ... ... ..... m taking any action in respect of transfer of 100 equity shares in the name of the petitioner otherwise the shares are in physical form, if he proves his bona fides in respect of purchase of 100 equity shares and furnish the required documents to the company. Before taking any action in respect of transfer of shares, the respondent-company shall issue notice to the transferor and if the company does not receive any reply within a period of three weeks from the date of notice, respondent No. 1 may act in accordance with law. In case respondent No. 1 takes a decision to transfer the shares in the name of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 shall take the indemnity from the petitioner in respect of the said 100 equity shares and deliver the share certificate to the petitioner. In case there is any legitimate claim and court orders on the said 100 equity shares, respondent No. 1 company shall act in accordance with law. With the above directions the company petition is disposed of.
-
2010 (5) TMI 692 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI BENCH
Refusal of Registration ... ... ... ... ..... quest made by them or any consent given by the petitioner to insert their names (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) as joint holders along with the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 company also failed to produce any board resolution to establish that the company has taken decision to insert the names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 company and its board of directors shall not run away from the responsibility to rectify the mistake. In view of the reasons as stated above, I find no justification for insertion of names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as joint holders in respect of 644 shares along with the petitioner. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (5) of section 111 of the Companies Act, I hereby direct respondent No. 1 company to delete the names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from the register of members in respect of 644 shares within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. With the above direction the company petition is disposed of.
-
2010 (5) TMI 691 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI BENCH
Investigation of company’s affairs ... ... ... ... ..... 9A of the Act which is pending. I hold that the scope of inspection and the scope of investigation are entirely different and inspection does not prejudice investigation. In view of the reasons as stated above this Bench comes to a conclusion that there are enough circumstances suggesting for an investigation into the affairs of the company and take necessary action. The fraudulent companies cannot run away from the clutches of law. The law must be enforceable in such cases to prevent the fraudulent acts and bring back the faith of the members. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 237(b) of the Act, the Central Government shall order for investigation into the affairs of the company and shall take appropriate action if warranted on receipt of the investigation report. The petitioners are hereby directed to furnish all the information they possess, to the authorities during investigation. 9. With the above directions the company petition is disposed of.
-
2010 (5) TMI 690 - ITAT MUMBAI
Whether even if the assessment is made u/s 143(1), while reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148, the assessing officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the reason to believe must have a live link with the formation of the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment
-
2010 (5) TMI 689 - HIMACHAL PRADESH, HIGH COURT
Demand of duty - Whether excise duty is liviable on “Control Samples” drawn and retained by the 'Party', considering it to be deemed removal under Rule 4, 10, 11 & 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – alleged that 'Party' was drawing batch control samples of medicines after labeling and packing in terms of Rule 78 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - No duty was being paid by the 'Party' on these control samples although no exemption was available – Held that:- In the case of Dabur India lt.,( 2005 (2) TMI 166 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) case was in favour of the 'Party' relying upon the aforesaid decision
-
2010 (5) TMI 688 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Reopening of assessment – beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year – change of opinion - disallowing the claim of bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) – Held that:- Reopening of the assessment after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the conditions of the first proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act have not been satisfied by the Assessing Officer in this case - assessee disclosed all primary facts before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act regarding claim of bad debt. The Assessing Officer after examining the issue accepted the claim of the assessee. Therefore, it is clear case of mere change of opinion for reopening of assessment which is bad in law - assessee has written off the bad debt as irrecoverable in its account - initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act is not in accordance with law - Assessing Officer, therefore, was not justified in initiating the reassessment proceedings - Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance on account of bad debt – in favor of assessee
-
2010 (5) TMI 687 - ITAT DELHI
Cash credit ... ... ... ... ..... to the observations made by us as above. In the result, all the three cross-objections of the assessee are allowed. 6. Now, we take up three appeals filed by the revenue. In view of our decision with regard to three cross-objections of the assessee, various grounds raised by the revenue in its appeals have become of academic interest only because as already held by us while deciding three cross-objections of the assessee that no addition can be made in the hands of this assessee in any of the three years on the basis of embezzlement because the allegation of embezzlement was quashed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and this decision of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon rsquo ble jurisdictional High Court. Under these facts and circumstances, the appeals of the revenue have become infructuous and are being dismissed as such. 7. In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the three cross-objections of the assessee are allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 686 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings
-
2010 (5) TMI 685 - ITAT BANGALORE
Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... unal. Since the exact nature of the materials were not deducible fromthe judgment, we had no other way but to direct the revenue to pinpointthose materials which were not allegedly considered by the Tribunal.Therefore, when these matters were again heard on 11-5-2010, we had to specifically ask the revenue to explain the nature of materialsthat have to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of the directionsgiven by the Hon rsquo ble jurisdictional High Court. But still we have not actedon technicalities. We have gone through all the materials available onrecord, including the materials highlighted by the revenue. 15. As substantially (discussed in paras above, we find that the additions made by the assessing authority are not sustainable in these cases. Defacto speaking we do not find any reason to deviate from the views taken by the Hon rsquo ble Members who heard and disposed of the appeals in the first round. 16. In the result, these two appeal are treated as allowed.
............
|
