TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omers of both the Appellant's Jammu unit and his wife's unit at Valsad, to conclude that profits of the Appellants, are inflated. Common customers by itself in the absence of some arrangement between the parties does not indicate transfer of profits to Appellant's Jammu unit. The factual finding of the CIT(A) has not been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order. This issue requires reconsideration by the Tribunal in the context of the appropriate interpretation to be put on Section 80IB(8) and (10) of the Act. Substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative by way of remand. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the issue for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, in accordance with law. - Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act to the present facts. In the above view, it was requested that the Appeal itself could be disposed of at the stage of admission. 4 Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue also did not dispute the fact that the scope of the Appeal is within a very narrow compass and it could be disposed of at the stage of admission. Therefore, the Appeal was adjourned to today i.e. 31st January, 2017 to enable the Revenue to prepare itself for final hearing of Appeal. 5 In the above view, question as proposed by the Appellant is admitted as a substantial question of law and by consent of the parties, the Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 6 The Appellant-Assessee is an individual, who carries on business of manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods/services, inter se, resulting in extraordinary profits. Thus, allowed the appeal and deleted the disallowance. 9 Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in Appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the Revenue's Appeal, holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 80IA(10) of the Act to redetermine the profits of the Appellant's unit. This for the reasons that the Appellant's unit at Jammu as well as his wife's unit at Valsad makes sales of its liquid soaps to the same persons. Thus, concluding that restricting the benefit of Section 80IB of the Act at 10% of net profit ratio of the Jammu unit, was reasonable. 10 The grievance of the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his wife's unit at Valsad, to conclude that profits of the Appellants, are inflated. Common customers by itself in the absence of some arrangement between the parties does not indicate transfer of profits to Appellant's Jammu unit. The factual finding of the CIT(A) has not been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order. This issue requires reconsideration by the Tribunal in the context of the appropriate interpretation to be put on Section 80IB(8) and (10) of the Act. 12 In the above view, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative by way of remand. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the issue for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, in accordance with law. 13 Needless to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
