TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of sale made to sister concern at lower rates ignoring the fact that the AO has clearly brought out the fact that the sale made to sister concern was at the rates lower than that to other non-related concerns. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in allowing deduction u/s80IB on income earned from job work, whereas the income from job work carried out by the assessee does not form part of income derived form the undertaking and has no nexus with the business of industrial undertaking of the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts deleting the addition made by AO on account of bonus (Rs. 5,75,466/-) and wages (Rs. 1,38,346/-) when the AO has clearly brought out in the assessment order that the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit and Loss a/c, balance sheet, income tax acknowledgement receipt and computation of income of Darshan Udyog have already been submitted with your goodself vide letter dated 02.12.2009. 2. Sale rate to Sister concern with sale rate to other parties is not comparable as no sale has been made to other parties during the period in which sale has been made to sister concern. 3. Cycle rims have been sold to sister concern in loose form without packing whereas to other parties have been sold in bundles which is clear from the packing expenditure as per Trading a/c of Darshan Udyog as well as detail of Bundle cases mentioned in the sale bills. In case of sale bills to other parties, detail of bundle / cases has been mentioned. 4. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not satisfied and he was of the opinion that sales have been made at a lower rate and ultimately he computed extra GP on account of lower rate of sales to the sister concern @ 7.50% and made addition of ₹ 49,97,319/- to the income of the assessee. 5. Before Ld. CIT(A) similar submissions were made. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the submissions and deleted the addition. 6. Before us, the Ld. DR strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee supported the impugned order. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Anr vs Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 113 wherein it has been held that the sales made to the sister ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re surrendered and it was admitted that deduction was not admissible against trading receipts. However, the assessee insisted on deduction on other items. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue in detail and allowed deduction u/s 80 IB only in respect of labour receipts vide para 4.4 which is as under:- In view of the above discussion, disallowance of deduction u/s80 IB on trading receipts, rental income, computer receipts and interest income is upheld and is allowed on labour receipts. 11. The Ld. DR strongly supported the assessment order. 12.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Impel Forge Allied Industries Ltd (2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P H) has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 15 days but workers could not tell the exact amount of bonus or leave wages. On the basis of this background, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount. 15. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) it was submitted that assessee was paying bonus @ 20% of the wages and leave encashment with @ 15 days wages. The workings were presented before the Assessing Officer who had confirmed these payments. On24.12.2009, some more workers were produced. The Assessing Officer refused to record their statement and the addition has been made on flimsy grounds. The Ld. CIT(A) examined those submissions and deleted the addition. 16. Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 17. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- and leave with wages of ₹ 1,38,346/- totaling to ₹ 7,13,812/-. 6.3. The AR, however, has contended that the assessee unit is covered under ESI and PF Act and the assessee is also maintaining wages register and bonus register. The workers confirmed the receipt of percentage of bonus and leave with wages. They have also identified and confirmed their signatures on the registers as prescribed under Labour Laws. They have also confirmed that they were working with the appellant for the year under consideration the fact which was reconfirmed by them in their cross examination. 6.4 Keeping in view of the above and also the detailed submissions made by the AR as reproduced above, I am of the opinion that the Assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
