|
II. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. M/s Earth Stone Group Vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No. 2188/Del/2012, Date of Pronouncement: 18.04.2016, ITAT - Delhi
Issue:
Whether the export made by the assessee who is a 100% Export
Oriented Unit through its sister concern would be deemed export and
would qualify for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act?
Held_Yes
Brief Facts:
The assessee company is 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in
manufacturing and processing of Marble, sand stone, slate stone, tiles,
lime stone, quartzite etc., etc. It filed the Return of Income for
Assessment Year 2008-09 declaring NIL income after claiming the
deduction u/s 10B amounting to Rs.9,64,64,001/-. AO in his order
disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of local
sale to its sister concern M/s Stone World which is the proprietary concern of one of the partners.. Aggrieved by which, the assessee appealed before the ITAT.
Held:
It was held that the goods which were exported through the sister
concern firm were directly sent for shipment by the assessee and the
shipping bill also has the assessee’s name for the name of the exporter.
In the light of the judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd. vs ACIT,
it can be said that the export sales directly made to the overseas
buyer through the sister concern was the deemed export of the assessee
and deduction u/s 10B was available as the three essential ingredients
of exports namely, 1.The goods are manufactured by 100% EOU; 2. The
goods are exported out of the country as per FTP provisions; 3.
Convertible foreign exchange is brought into India; are fulfilled by the
assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. DCIT Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., I.T.A. No. 1082/Kol/2013, Date of Pronouncement: 15-04-2016, ITAT - Kolkata
Issue:
Whether the disclosure made voluntarily by the assessee u/s 132(4)
of the Income Tax Act would qualify for claiming the immunity from
penalty u/s 271AAA(2)?
Held_Yes
Brief Facts:
The search and seizure operation was conducted on the office premises
of the assessee. The assessee filed the return of income in response to
notice issued u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act declaring total loss of
Rs. 4,71,01,221/-, wherein the assessee included the disclosure made
during the course of search operations of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for
Assessment year 2009-10. Assessee also made a disclosure of Rs.
2,00,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1). Penalty
proceedings u/s 271AAA on both the assessment years was initiated by the
Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) deleted such penalties based on the
submissions made by the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue appealed before
ITAT.
Held:
ITAT held that no definition could be given to the “specified manner”
insofar as the very statement on oath u/s 132(4) specifies the manner
on which the assessee is prepared to pay tax thereon. The inscribing in
the books of account was taken care of by the assessee when he filed
the returns in pursuance to notice u/s 153A accounting the assets.
Moreover, the tax and interest have been recovered by the revenue from
the assessee. Where during course of search assessee admitted
undisclosed income, paid tax together with interest, filed return
showing said income as business income and Assessing Officer had
accepted same, it could not be said that assessee had not specified
manner or could not substantiate manner in which income was derived. The
levy of penalty u/s 27lAAA in the instant cases is not justified. The
appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now