TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port u/s 10CCB of the Act as additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and the same was admitted by the CIT (A) and also, accepting the explanation of the assessee regarding its failure to submit it before the AO and the remand report was also called from the AO - The AO had not reported anything adverse against the proof submitted by the assessee – Decided in favour of Assessee. Rejection of claim of interest and rent – Held that:- The decision in Liberty India vs. CIT [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT ] followed - the claim of the assessee is disallowance relating to interest income, rental income and foreign exchange rate fluctuation being not derived from industrial undertaking of the assessee – Decided against Assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt s accounts were audited by an Accountant as prescribed u/s. 288(2) and as per the requirement of sec.80IA(7). c) Without prejudice to above, removing technical deficiency whether at assessment stage or at remand stage, the Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated the merits which was also ignored by the CIT(A). ii) The ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the following claims as not being eligible u/s.80IB without appreciating that these receipts had close nexus with the manufacturing activity of the Appellant. Interest income - Rs.6,82,045/- Rent received - Rs.1,70,000/- Foreign Exchange - Rs.3,52,360/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les and Marbles P. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) = (2009-TIOL-127-SC-IT-LB). The assessee also adduced additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A) in the form of audit report in form 10CCB and which was admitted on record as additional evidence. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) called for the record from the AO regarding the said audit report. The AO reported that the furnishing of audit report was mandatory and since the assessee had not furnished the same during the course of assessment proceedings the same should not be considered during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter observed that the assessee had been continuously claiming the deduction under section 80IB from 2003-04 onwards and the claim of the assessee had been consistently all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation 254 ITR 6, while interpreting the provisions of similarly worded section 32AB(5) of the Act has held that the submission of audit report along with the return is not mandatory. The AO has discretion to entertain the same during the assessment proceedings also. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT 219 ITR 721, while adjudicating the issue relating to furnishing of audit report along with return of income under section 80J(6A) of the Act has held that where the assessee was not granted opportunity by the AO to file the audit report during assessment proceedings and the requirement of furnishing of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air enough to admit that the issue is covered against the assessee vide the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (supra). So far the issue relating to income on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation is concerned, the ld. A.R. has relied upon another authority of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. CIT 322 ITR 180 (SC) = (2010-TIOL-20-SC-IT) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that loss on account of fluctuation in rate of foreign exchange is an allowable deduction. This decision, in our view, is of no help to the assessee, but to the Revenue only. If the loss on fluctuation is to be treated as revenue loss then applying the same principle vic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
