Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 445 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

2016 (1) TMI 445 - ITAT CHANDIGARH - TMI - Disallowance u/s 36 (1)(iii) - Held that:- As the principal amount itself was in dispute which, according to the submission of the assessee was given to the above company for purchase of property and when agreement was not executed, the assessee made efforts for recovery of the amount in question and ultimately, after issuing a demand notice dated 30.03.2012 and notice dated 20.08.2011 (PB-208), the amount in question was returned to the assessee. There .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

claim of assessee by not mentioning the speculative loss in particular column of the e-return for assessment year 2010-11. Considering the above discussion, we are of the view that authorities below were not justified in not allowing the claim of set off of brought forward speculative loss. The orders of authorities below are therefore, set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to allow set off of brought forward speculative loss for assessment year 2010-11 in assessment year under appeal o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der section 143(1). In assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order under appeal, re-opened under section 148, however by following the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lovlesh Jain (2011 (12) TMI 93 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), allowed the claim of assessee under section 10B of the Act wherein held that "When the assessee imported standard gold into India and then converted it into jewellery or ornaments and exported the ornaments, it amounts to exp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enue authorities should follow rule of consistency and should not have made disallowance under section 10B of the Income Tax Act in assessment year under appeal itself. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1081/CHD/2014, ITA No. 1123/CHD/2014 - Dated:- 16-9-2015 - BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sudhir Sehgal For The Respondent : Sunil Verma ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM Both the cross appeals are directed against the order of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had given loans and advances to the extent of r. 6.74 Cr. From the details of these loans and advances, Assessing Officer further noted that a sum of ₹ 1.85 Cr had been given to M/s Vikas House Building Company Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. No interest was charged on this amount. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain why proportionate interest on this amount may not be disallowed. The assessee submitte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of the assessee and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessee had given an amount of ₹ 1.85 Cr to M/s Vikas House Building Company Pvt. Ltd. on which no interest was charged and the amount was received back in subsequent year. The nature of transaction involved was merely interest free advances given to this party. No evidence with regard to purchase of property was filed. No details were filed with regard to nature of the property to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rposes and accordingly, appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. We have considered rival submissions. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that advance was given for acquiring a land in South City for the purpose of showroom to be used in the business. The said area was upcoming area and any expansion in such area would definitely benefit the business prospect of the assessee concern. When the deal could not be materialized as t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

against this party only then amount as advanced could be recovered in parts. It was, therefore, not the interest free advances. He has relied upon unreported decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT-II Ludhiana Vs Shri Suraj Dev Dada ITA 23 of 2013 dated 11.02.2014. He has also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bright Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 224 of 2013, dated 15-7-2015] in which department .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any justification to sustain the addition. The Assessing Officer found that assessee had given loans and advances to the extent of ₹ 6.74 Cr. The assessee furnished details of such loans and advances and out of the same, it was observed that a sum of ₹ 1.85 Cr has been given to M/s Vikas House Building Company Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. On one hand, the Assessing Officer noted that interest is to be capitalized as per pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he agreement between the parties. The assessee believing the statement of this company given a cheque of ₹ 2.50 Cr dated 22.03.2011. The assessee approached this party for executing the agreement in this regard but that party was delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. The aforesaid company then returned ₹ 65 lacs through two cheques on 24.03.2011 and thus, the balance remained payable in a sum of ₹ 1.85 Cr. Further, a sum of ₹ 35 lacs was returned on 02.04.2011 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h interest at 15% p.a. (PB-208). These facts, therefore, clearly establish on record that initially assessee has advanced a sum of ₹ 2.50 Cr to M/s Vikas House Building Company Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property and when the said party delayed in execution of the agreement, part of the amount was returned. The substantial amount was returned after issue of the demand notice. In such a situation, it was difficult for the assessee to furnish any evidence as noted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) whet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emand notice, assessee asked for the interest @ 12% on balance amount of ₹ 1.50 Cr. Therefore, it appears that assessee has made a claim of interest accordingly. Therefore, the facts and circumstances clearly show that it may not be an interest free advance or loan given to M/s Vikas House Building Company Pvt. Ltd., as is stated by the authorities below. In the case of CIT v. Shri Suraj Dev Dada (supra), Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reproduced the order of the Tribunal in w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amount vide cheques of different dates leaving the balance to the tune of ₹ 7.5 lacs. The Tribunal, considering these facts found that since the principal amount was at stake, there was no occasion for assessee to charge interest on the advanced amount. The departmental appeal was, thus, dismissed by the Tribunal. 8. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court confirmed the findings of the Tribunal and observed that, "The assessee had not charged any interest on the amount advance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t was not executed, the assessee made efforts for recovery of the amount in question and ultimately, after issuing a demand notice dated 30.03.2012 and notice dated 20.08.2011 (PB-208), the amount in question was returned to the assessee. Therefore, authorities below were not justified in making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any justification to sustain the addition. We, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition. These ground .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the assessee had filed return of income for assessment year 2010-11 on 26.09.2010 showing a total income of ₹ 1,04,79,139/- under the head 'profit and gains of business'. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain why the wrong claim of set off of last years' business loss may not be disallowed. The assessee submitted that brought forward losses for assessment year 2010-11 was speculative loss amounting to ₹ 1,67,12,762/-. The assessee also submitted a copy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that assessee had not shown any speculative gain for the year under consideration against which speculative loss of any earlier year could be set off. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, disallowed the claim of set off of loss of ₹ 1,42,93,116/- pertaining to the earlier years. 11. The assessee filed written submissions before ld. CIT(Appeals) in which it was submitted that at the time of filing of the on-line return, the speculative loss was not shown under the specific column in Schedule .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the parties and perused the material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that it was a genuine speculative loss which was mentioned in internal column of return of income in assessment year 2010-11 and the bonafide mistake of not mentioning in the relevant column of return was only on the part of the counsel for assessee. The speculative loss had been duly disclosed in the audited accounts and was also sepa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

41. PB-226 is Schedule-BP of return for assessment year 2010-11 and in column No. 1, it is noted "Profit before tax as per Profit & Loss Account Rs. -28,49,336/-)" This figure match with the computation of income filed by assessee (PB-39). PB-227 is continuation of Schedule-BP of return for assessment year 2010-11 in which in column No. 22, it is stated "any other item or items of addition under section 28 to 44DA =Rs. 1,68,49,634/-" This figure is also shown in the compu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of income for the same assessment year 2010-11 (PB-39). In the computation of income itself (PB-39), assessee has also specifically mentioned speculation business and loss from speculation business in a sum of ₹ 1,67,12,762/- and was carried forward to the next year. 13(i) The ld. CIT (Appeals) also noted in the impugned order that assessee has also submitted copy of computation of income. It would, therefore, show that complete facts were available before Assessing Officer and the ld. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther, it is noted in the impugned order that Assessing Officer pointed out that assessee had not shown any speculative gain for the year under consideration against which the speculative loss for any earlier year can be set off. These findings of the authorities below are also factually incorrect. The speculative income in assessment year under appeal i.e. 2011-12 has been duly disclosed in the consolidated Profit & Loss Account filed at page 25 of the Paper Book as under: (i) Profit from tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e tune of ₹ 24,19,646/- to future year. Thus, the above speculative income for the year under consideration has been set off against the brought forward speculative loss of preceding assessment year 2010-11 and balance speculation loss of ₹ 24,19,646/- has been carried forward to the subsequent assessment year. The copy of e-return for assessment year 2011-12 under appeal is filed at PB-242 and at PB-244, assessee has disclosed the amount of ₹ 1,42,93,116/- and at PB-258, asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

15. We may also note here that Section 73 of the Income Tax Act deals with losses in speculation business and the salient feature of this provision is that any loss, computed in respect of speculation business carried on by assessee, shall not be set off except against profit and gains, if any, of another speculation business. In case the speculation loss has not been wholly set off, then such loss may be carried forward to the subsequent assessment years i.e. it shall be set off for the assessm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

olumn of the - return would not give right to the authorities below to disallow the claim of assessee of set off of brought forward loss, particularly when complete facts were disclosed at the assessment stage which is supported by the computation of income and details furnished the e-return and before Assessing Officer. The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to Circular No. 14 dated 11.04.1955 issued by the CBDT in which para 3 reads as under: "3. Officers of the Department must not tak .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing a square deal from the Department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should:- (a) draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs." 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. 116 ITR 778 in which it was held as under: "When there is sufficient evidence on record to support a claim, neither the AAC nor the Tribunal is barred from entertaining a claim on the basis of the evidence on record which is sufficient to support the claim. The decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd., therefore, is no bar to the entertaining of the claim by the AAC or the Tribunal, in view of the fac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uty cast on the Income-tax Officer to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee's taxable income and the consequential tax liability. That the assessee fails to claim the benefit of a set-off cannot relieve Income-tax Officer of his duty to apply section 24 in an appropriate case." 19. The above Board's Circular and the decisions cited clearly support the explanation of the assessee and it was duty of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

view that authorities below were not justified in not allowing the claim of set off of brought forward speculative loss of ₹ 1,42,93,116/-. The orders of authorities below are therefore, set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to allow set off of brought forward speculative loss for assessment year 2010-11 in assessment year under appeal of the amount in question. 21. In the result, ground nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 22. The ground of appeal Nos. 7 and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lery and trading of bullion. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act to the extent of ₹ 48,18,153/-. In this regard the AR of the assessee submitted that it had established 100% export oriented unit at Noida and was entitled to deduction u/s 10B. The assessee also submitted the details of the convertible foreign exchange received in India. From these details, the AO noted that foreign exchange realized in India wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in foreign currency and then receiving the same amount back in foreign currency against goods exported the assessee had received the net amount in foreign currency after adjusting amount of imports being made. The AO considered the assessee's submissions but was not satisfied. Regarding the assessee's contention that it was required to make payment of imports in foreign currency the AO referred to the purchase bill submitted by the assessee and pointed out that as per the bill the gold b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee. All these facts were brought to the notice of the assessee by the AO and the assessee was asked to explain why exemption u/s 1OB may not be disallowed. 25(i) The assessee submitted that it was a 100% export oriented unit engaged in manufacturing and export of jewellery. The assessee further submitted that it was claiming exemption u/s 10B since its year of inception i.e. assessment year 2004-05. The assessee submitted that the standard gold is imported as well as purchased by the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.e. M/s Siroya Jewellers and the buyer i.e. M/s Al Salam Jewellers. As per this arrangement, the goods imported were provided free of cost by the supplier to the appellant and the net export proceedings after making adjustment of import payment were made to the assessee. The assessee submitted that it was bringing in net foreign exchange into India. The assessee also relied on the case of CIT v. Lovlesh Jain (2012) 204 :TAXMAN 134(Del). The assessee further submitted that in the preceding years .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

regarding purchase and sale have been duly confirmed by the concerned authorities. The AO considered the assessee's submissions but was not satisfied. The AO referred to the definition of purchase and sale and observed that the assessee was not involved in any purchase or sale of jewellery. The AO pointed out that Section 10B provided benefits only with regard to profits derived from exports of articles or things manufactured. The AO observed that the assessee may have manufacture the jewell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f res-judicata does not apply to the I.T. provisions. The AO also pointed out that the assessee had closed its Noida unit. In this regard the AO pointed out that deduction u/s 10B was not available to the assessee from assessment year 2012-13. The AO observed that the closure of this unit, even though the assessee was earning handsome profit indicated that no actual business was carried out from the place. The AO held that the assessee was not involved in export of article or thing and therefore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y or to a third person at Dubai namely M/s Al-Salam Jewellers. The assessee submitted that to avoid unnecessary hassles and extra expenditure in process of making payment the assessee had entered into an agreement with the supplier i.e. M/s Siroya Jewellers and the buyer M/s Al-Salam Jewellers that the goods imported will be provided free of cost by the supplier to the assessee and the net export proceeds after making adjustment of import payments will be paid to the assessee. Accordingly gold w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASPINWALL & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 323. The assessee also referred to the following case laws: i. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sophisticated Marbles & Granite Industries (2011) 331 ITR 96. ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramsons Organics Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR (Del) 502. iii. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Pallavi Granite Industries, High Court of Madras (ITA No. 1118 of 2009 & 888 of 2010). iv Commissioner of Income Tax vs. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mply with the SEZ rules, the assessee had to submit annual performance report to the Development Commissioner, NSEZ, Noida where total exports and total imports made by the assessee during the year along with the net earnings of the foreign exchange are to be mentioned. This report was evidence of the fact that the assessee was earning net foreign exchange. The assessee also referred to the Circular No. 34/2013 dated 04.09.2013 of the Customs Department wherein it had been stated that, whatever, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

come Tax Department is not entitled to disallow that finding without any material or valid reason. The assessee submitted that it was the custom authority which was to determine whether it is a case of export or not and there is no finding against the assessee and as such the Income Tax Authority cannot disallow that finding at all. The assessee further submitted that even during the course of assessment proceedings the AO had accepted its sale and purchase as reflected in the audited balance sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k and was not involved in export and import. The assessee also referred to the RBI guidelines which provided for netting of exports. 28. During the course of appellate proceedings another issue was discussed with the assessee. This issue was with regard to the computation of deduction under section 10B. The provision of Section 10B were discussed with the AR of the assessee and it was brought to the notice of the AR of the assessee that the deduction u/s 10B had to be computed on the basis of fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eceived from the same party to whom the payments for imports were to be made, it was more convenient and profitable for the assessee to net off the export realization with the payments of the export and bring the net proceeds into India, instead of first making payment of imports and then bringing entire export proceeds into India. The net result in both the case would be the same. The assessee submitted that it was following this modus operandi since several years as it was a permissible arrang .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The copy of the written submissions of the assessee were forwarded to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer vide his report dated 21.10.2014 submitted as under: "The AO has discussed in detail the issues raised by the assessee in its 'assessment order passed on 05.03,2014. The AO has discussed this issue in Para 3 of its order. I reply upon the detailed order passed by the AO, However, while doing assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10 the A.O. passed order dated 28.08.2014. Again the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT, 108 ITR 345 which was followed by Hon'ble ITAT, Calcutta-B Bench in the case of TATA Tea Ltd. Vs. JCIT, 87 ITD 351 (see para 6.3 and 6.4 of AOs order for the A.Y. 2009-10). The assessee has placed reliance on various case laws in regard to the definition of the word manufacture. The AO in its order has held that the assessee has done only the job work. The AO has discussed in detail all the points i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#39;ble ITAT, Mumbai bench in the case of Core Jewellery p. Ltd In IT A No, 715/Mum/2010 dated 13.04.2011 It has been submitted that the Hon'ble ITAT has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 223 ITR 271 (SC) dated 30.10.1996. Your attention is invited to Para 6 of the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Core Jewellery P. Ltd. Wherein it has been mentioned that bringing the sales proceeds of export of the goods or articles i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there is no such payment. In fact there is no reduction by the AO of any kind. In fact, there is no cost of gold as is evident from the vouchers enclosed with the assessment order. It has been clearly mentioned that gold is given free of cost. In that case the facts are different and distinguishable. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JB Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 223 ITR 271 (SC) is also distinguishable. In that case again there was two way traffic. That means the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duction u/s 80-O, In the present case there is no issue of allowance of deduction u/s 80-O The assessee is claiming exemption u/s 10B and there is no circular issued by the CBDT in regards to the exemption u/s 10B. Had there been any intention on the part of the CBDT to allow exemption u/s 10B in these circumstances, the CBDT would have issued such circular. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the assessee are different on facts and also distinguishable. It is reiterated that the basic point .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e vide written submissions dated 31.10.2014 submitted as under : 1.1 From the comments of the AO as given above it is evident that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order for assessment year 2011-12 on 05.03.2014. In this assessment order, the Ld. AO disallowed in full, exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10B of the Act amounting to ₹ 48,18,153/-. After passing this order, based on the material gathered during this assessment, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment of the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the basis of information collected during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12. It is incorrect to say that no new fact has come into existence. Actually it has come to the notice of the department for the first time that the assessee is not involved in export of any article or thing but it is actually involved in the job work of a party from Dubai. The issue has been elaborately discussed in the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has never purchased any gold, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ces is same in both the years. 1.4 In the assessment proceedings of both the years, the assessee had relied on the judgment of Honorable High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Lovlesh Jain 204 Taxman 134 (Del) (2012). 1.5 In para no. 3.5 (VII) at page no. 17 of assessment order for assessment year 2011-12 the Ld. AO has mentioned as under: "The facts of the case relied upon by the assessee are entirely different. In the case relied upon, the assessee had possession of the gold and had a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e no. 20 of assessment order for assessment year 2009-10 mentioned as under: "There is no decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, yet respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court it is considered that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing. " Para No. 6 (ii): "The Hon'ble High Court has held that there is no pre condition of ownership for allowing deduction u/s 10A/10B. The Hon'ble High Court held that the activity undertaken i.e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

deduction is to be given -with reference to amount of convertible foreign exchange received in India by the assessee. " Para No. 6.5: "Based on these principles i.e. definition as given in section 1OB (3) of the I.T. Act and the definition of export turnover, the working of deduction is calculated as below : Deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act = Profits of the business * Export turnover Total Turnover of the business Para No. 6.5.1: "The assessee has filed the details of convertible .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e comes to ₹ 55,64,928/- as worked out below:- Deduction u/s I OB of the I. T. Act = 2,85,31,092 x 23,23,83,294 119,14,16,709 = 5 5,64,9 2 8/- Para No. 6.5.3:"The deduction available to the assessee u/s 10B of the I. T, Act would be ₹ 55,64,928/- as against the claim of ₹ 2,85,31,092/-. This working is in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in , the case of Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT, 108 ITR 345 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Ld. Assessing Officer again discussed the issue again and followed the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case and allowed exemption of ₹ 55,64,928/-i.e. based on the net foreign exchange received in India (Export receivables - Import payables). This order was passed on 28.08.2014. Thus, the Ld. AO has himself changed his stand taken earlier and accepted that exemption should be allowed for net foreign exchange received in India out of total turnover. 1.8 The same a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n again make the payment for imports. Therefore, the payment made for imports against the export realization is deemed to be brought to India. As there is no requirement of two way traffic of the same amount as held by Hon, Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Boda and Company Private Limited vs. CBDT (SO reported in 223 ITR 271 (SC)." Both these judgments have already been quoted by the assessee in its reply dated 21.10.2014. 1.9 Thus, the contention taken by the Ld. AO in her reply dated 21. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cusing on the one aspect i.e. in the invoice issued by the supplier, it is written that the goods are sent free of cost. However, A.O. is ignoring the fact that the words 'free of cost' have been mentioned on import invoice only, due to the fact that assessee has entered into an arrangement with the overseas supplier of gold to bring in the net foreign exchange into India. For example, we assume that assessee has exported goods worth US $ 200000/-. The assesse has also imported goods wor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hereby that the assessee is not required to make payment for imports due to the procedure of net foreign exchange followed by him as permitted by RBI, the competent authority, and also found to be in order by the various judicial authorities. The words mentioned in the invoice have only procedural significance and they do not in any way take away the ownership of the assessee on gold imported and his obligation to pay for the same. 2.2 The contention taken by the Ld. AO that the assessee was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

valorem duty, it is necessary to find out value of goods as in this case, the duty is calculated by multiplying the 'value' of goods with rate of customs duty. (c) As per section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the value of imported goods shall be the Transaction Value of such goods. (d) The transactions value shall be: - the price actually paid or payable for the goods. 2.3 Thus, from the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, it is clear that customs duty is payable only when the importe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ayment against export payment to bring in net foreign exchange into India. 2.5 Your goodself 's attention is also invited to the sample copies of the bills placed in the paper book at pages 151 to 160 wherein, it is very much evident that the purchase value has been adjusted against the sale value and, thus, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the goods are free of cost is totally incorrect. 2.6 The Assessing Officer's contention in the remand report that in the case of M/s Core .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee is engaged in manufacturing and export of jewellery and no sale have been made in India and it is 100% export oriented unit." 33. The ld. CIT(Appeals), considering submissions of the assessee deleted the addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee. His findings in paras 4.10 to 4.17 of the impugned order are reproduced as under: 4.10 I have carefully considered the rival submissions. There are two issues to be considered in this ground of appeal: i. Whether the appellant is invo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and is therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the IT. Act. The appellant's contention is that it is importing gold from Dubai and is exporting manufactured ornaments to Dubai. It is accordingly eligible for deduction u/s 10B. In this regard the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Lovlesh Jain (supra). 4.13 On this issue the following facts are relevant: (a) The case of assessment year 2009-10 was reopened on the basis of inf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) (2012). (c) In para No. 3.5(vii) at page No. 17 of assessment order for assessment year 2011-12 the Ld. AO has mentioned as under: "The facts of the case, relied upon by the assessee are entirely different. In the case relied upon, the assessee had possession of the gold and had a right, dominance and dominion over it. In the said case the assessee had imported gold and it had become the owner. He was in a position to dispose off in any way the way he liked. In the instant case, the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

i High Court it is considered that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing (e) Thus in assessment year 2011-12 the Ld. AO denied the deduction u/s 10B in full mentioning that the case of the appellant is different from the case of CIT v Lovlesh Jain. This order was passed on 05.03.2014. Later on while doing the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, the Ld. AO again discussed the issue and again followed the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case and allowed deduction o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the case of CIT v. Lovlesh Jain (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Lovlesh Jain (supra) it is held that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act. 4.15 Whether the computation of deduction u/s 10B as claimed by the appellant is correct or not. As per the provisions of Section 10B of the I.T. Act the working of deduction u/s 10B is computed as under: Deduction u/s I OB of the I, T. Act = Profits of the bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d against the amount receivable for export of ornaments/jewellery and only the net amount receivable is being brought into India in convertible foreign exchange. The appellant has contended that instead of first making the payment for imports and then bringing the entire export proceeds into India, which would involve extra expenditure and hassles and would be a futile exercise, only the net amount receivable after adjusting the payables and receivables was brought into India, The appellant has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the same amount first being the entire export proceedings in foreign exchange and then again make the payment for imports. Therefore, the payment made for imports against the export realization is deemed to be brought to India. As there is no requirement of two way traffic of the same amount as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Boda & Company (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT (SC) reported in 223 ITR 271 (SC)." 4.16 Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.' 34. The ld. DR relied upon orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the bills of the assessee shows repairing/remaking which is job work in nature, therefore, there is no export in the case of the assessee. 34(i) On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that difference in the value was treated as profit and submitted that the assessee made same claim of exem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

year under appeal i.e. 2011-12, Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of assessee under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2009-10, however, again allowed deduction under section 10B in the order under section 148/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. By following the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lovlesh Jain (supra) he has, therefore, submitted that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Lovlesh Jain (supra) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent years 2004-05 to 2010-11 and the claim of assessee has been allowed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act after scrutiny assessments. In assessment year 2010-11, it was allowed under section 143(1). In assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order under appeal, re-opened under section 148, however by following the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lovlesh Jain (supra), allowed the claim of assessee under section 10B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version