|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1441 Records
-
2014 (2) TMI 1244
Taxability of interest income on principles of mutuality - Held that:- The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case (1975 (12) TMI 6 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court ) has decided the issue against the assessee by holding that interest income earned from deposits with member banks is taxable in the hands of the assessee. Considering such submissions of the assessee and going through the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case we uphold the order of the CIT (A) by dismissing the ground raised by assessee.
Set off of operational loss against income assessed - Held that:- On a careful reading of sec. 71 of the Act, we are of the view that the aforesaid section allows set off of loss under any head of income, other than capital gains, against income assessable for that assessment year under any other head. Only restriction being, there should not be any income under the head capital gains. Therefore, if the assessee has sustained loss under any head, except capital gains, and the assessee has no income from capital gains during the year, then loss can be set off against income assessable under any other head. However, it appears from the record that assessee has not raised this issue before the first appellate authority. That apart, full facts relating to this issue have not been brought on record. It is also submitted by the learned AR that similar issue pertaining to asst. year 1996-97 and asst. years 1998-99 to 2003-04 are pending before the CIT (A) having been remitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of CIT (A) for deciding afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1243
Addition u/s 40A(3) - whether payments are all covered by the exception to rule 6DD of the I.T.Rule’62, and as such the addition may please be deleted - cash payments made by the assessee for the purchase of country liquor from the Government authorised dealers - Held that:- The issue in the assessee’s case is in respect of the payments made under the rules framed by the Government and such payment was required to be made in legal tender. A perusal of the Government Notification issued by the Govt. of West Bengal clearly shows that the dealers are agents of the Government and the payments made are to the Government. It also makes it categorically required that the payment is to be made before lifting of the country spirit. Consequently we are of the view that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.Amrai Pachwai & C.S.Shop [2014 (2) TMI 979 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein held the provisions of Rule 6DD(b) of the I.T.Rules, 1962 which clearly spells out that the payment made to the government in legal tender under the rules framed by the Government, is exempted from the rigours of section 40A(3) of the Act. Here, it is noticed that the payments made by the assesee for purchase of country spirit and country liquor is to the government as per the notification issued by the government and is in legal tender specified by the notification. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the payment made by the assessee for the purchase of country liquor and country spirit from the territorial licensee bottling plant, IFB Agro Industries Ltd., City Centre, Durgapur is protected by the exemption in terms of Rule 6DD(b) of the I.T.Rules 1962. In the circumstances, the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act 1961 stands deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (2) TMI 1242
Validity of revision order u/s 263 - as per CIT(A) addition ought to have been towards undisclosed income of AOP instead of being taxed under the head 'income from business' - Held that:- In the present case, it is more than apparent that the learned Commissioner has proceeded to invoke his jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act only on his own opinion as to how the amount of the income concerned ought to have been treated. We may observe that so far this amount of ₹ 38,17,000 is concerned, it was not the case that the assessee had not disclosed the same at all. It is different matter that the same was treated by the AO to be part of income of business after consideration of the record and with the finding that the same was to be treated as profit from the business of sale of agricultural land.
In the given set of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the said income has been duly added to the income of the assessee, neither the order of the AO on this ground could have been considered as erroneous nor it could have been treated as operating prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
Thus when we find that the order passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the law applicable and cannot be said to be legally unjustified, the formulated question in this case is required to be answered in the affirmative i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1241
Disallowance under 14A - Held that:- Assessee has earned tax free income to the extent of ₹ 24.92 lacs against which the disallowance. of ₹ 10 lacs under 14A has been sustained by CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts, we find that the disallowance that has been sustained by CIT(A) is on higher side and the ends of justice shall be met if the disallowance is restricted to ₹ 5 lacs. We thus direct accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of revenue
Disallowance made on account of sundry debit balances written off - Held that:- We find that CIT(A) has given a finding the Assessee has written off net debit balance and has followed the decision of Hon. Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. reported at [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that after the amendment of Section 36(2) effective from 01.04.1989 by Finance Act, 1987, once the Assessee has written of the debts in the books, it is not necessary to prove that the debt has become bad for the purpose of allowing claim of bad debts. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (2) TMI 1240
Direction to constitute the Bench - Held that:- Without going into merits of the matter, at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and petitioner himself, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter with a direction to respondent no. 1 & 2 to re-constitute the Special Bench for deciding the Reference aforesaid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Meaning thereby the entire exercise of reconstituting Special Bench and hearing of the Reference and disposing of the same shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Shri Shah the petitioner, in view of above directions does not press this petition.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1239
Imposition of Anti-dumping duty under Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975- Import of Viscose Filament Yarn from the People’s Republic of China for which bills of entry submitted shows Shanghai and goods of China Origin- Liability to pay anti-dumping duty as provided under Serial No. 5. which read “any country of export except China PR”- Held that: there is no dispute that the goods were imported from the People’s Republic of China and country of origin is also the People’s Republic of China. Therefore the imposition of anti-dumping duty as provided under Serial No. 5 of the Notification, which is in respect of any goods imported from any other country except People’s Republic of China, is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of Appellant
-
2014 (2) TMI 1238
Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law :
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT [A] in deleting addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT credit of ₹ 33,25,541/=?
-
2014 (2) TMI 1237
Revision under Section 263 - Held that:- This Court has considered the Tribunal’s determination made on the basis of a detailed scrutiny of the material available to the assessing officer, which had been enquired into at the stage of assessment. In our opinion, the Tribunal’s finding with regard to the proprietary of the Commissioner’s exercise power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be termed as erroneous.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1236
Assessment of business profits - income declared during survey and consequent disallowance of business expenses - Held that:- Disallowance of business expenses is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of other group concern in the case of Shrreshay Engg. Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 876 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein the Tribunal has held that the expenses are to be allowed by AO after verification as AO and the Ld.CIT(A), however, misconceived the claim of the assessee for the said expenses as that of against the additional income declared during the course of survey and made disallowance of the said expenses on the basis of this misconception without considering or examining the said claim on merit being the claim for regular business expenses of post survey period against regular business income.
Allowability of set off of the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years - Held that:- The present assessee has moved an application u/s 154 before the AO for considering the said claim, which is not disputed by the Revenue, we, following the aforementioned decision of the earlier years being assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, direct the AO to dispose of the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 expeditiously without any further delay
-
2014 (2) TMI 1235
Lvy of penalty u/s 158BFA - assessee had earned business income outside its books, which had not been disclosed in the return of income but was disguised as agricultural income - Held that:- We find that with respect to undisclosed agriculture income, CIT(A) while deleting the addition on agriculture income has noted that Assessee had claimed to have earned agricultural income of ₹ 35,72,353/- but in appellate proceedings the income of ₹ 23,11,092/- was accepted. He has further noted that during the course of penalty proceedings, Assessee had furnished evidences in the form of confirmations but the same were not considered by A.O. He has further noted that A.O. had disallowed the agriculture income by treating it as business income but for which no evidence during the search or otherwise was found to show that Assessee had earned business income outside it books and has not been disclosed in the return of income but was disguised as agriculture income. With respect to disallowance of professional fees, CIT(A) has given a finding that Assessee was engaged on 31.03.1999 and ₹ 4.50 lacs was also paid subsequently to him. The issue that whether the liability of professional fees accrued as on 31.03.1999 was a debatable issue and therefore penalty cannot be sustained on debatable issue. With respect to gross profit, he has noted that G.P. addition was made on the basis of estimate and therefore no penalty was leviable. Before us, the Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record.
We also do not agree with the submission of Revenue that penalty u/s. 158BFA is mandatory in view of the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satyendara Kumar Dosi (2009 (1) TMI 240 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) where the Hon’ble High Court has held that levy of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is discretionary and not mandatary. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (2) TMI 1234
Disallowance of interest made u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on the reasoning that the assessee did not incur any interest expenditure for earning tax free dividend - Held that:- The interest income has been received from bank deposit, while interest payment is made to directors and not against any bank loan. Hence, in our view, the question of netting off interest will not arise. In view of the foregoing discussions, in our view, the AO was justified in making disallowance of part of interest expenditure in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income tax Rules read with section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the addition made by the assessing officer.
Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- There is no dispute that the assessee was required to invest a sum of ₹ 3.70 crore as per the above said agreement. Further the terms of the agreement also show that the assessee was selected as a turnkey contractor for executing the project. According to the assessee, a special purpose vehicle, viz., M/s Hassan Biomass Power Company Private Ltd was formed and the assessee has contributed a sum of ₹ 3.25 crores towards its share capital. According to the Ld A.R, the other share holder was M/s Nucon Energy Group, Mauritius. We notice that these factual aspects have not been examined by the assessing officer. However, the factual position narrated by the Ld A.R would show that the assessee was having a commercial interest and also obligation in making investment of ₹ 3.25 crores, referred above. Besides the above, the assessee has also supplied the materials to M/s Hassan Biomass power company Pvt Ltd. We notice that the said investment has been made in the earlier years, i.e., it is reflected in the Balance sheet as at 31.3.2005. Under these set of facts, the Ld CIT(A) has expressed the view that the investment of ₹ 3.25 crores cannot be said to be for non-business purposes. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are also inclined to accept the view expressed by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold his view on this issue.
Sale of shares - "Income from business" OR "Capital gains" - Held that:- The tax authorities have reached their own conclusions without properly appreciating the facts surrounding the issue, particularly the clarificatory letter issued by the tax auditor, the frequency of transactions etc. Hence, in our view, this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we set aside this order of ld CIT (A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the issue afresh by duly considering all the materials that may be produced by the assessee and also the facts surrounding the issue and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1233
Denial of principles of natural justice - Utilization of procured raw materials and bogus exports shown with respect to goods shown to have been made out of non duty paid raw materials - delaying of adjudication proceedings - stay proceeding - Held that:- It is observed from the case records that Advocate of the appellant vide letter dated 19/4/2006 asked for copies of certain documents from DGCEI before filing reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 31/1/2006. Though a copy of this letter was marked to Adjudicating Authority but the relied upon document copies were never asked from the adjudicating authorityfor more than seven years appellant slept and did not care to remind the adjudicating authority that certain documents are required and that that appellant has some duty towards filing of a written reply to the Show Cause Notice. Appellant also did not bother to intimate the field formations or the Adjudicating Authority regarding change in address for communication. It appears that appellant has indulged in delaying of adjudication proceedings
As main appellant M/s Waghbakriwala Rayons is required to be put to certain conditions in order to ensure that appellant co-operate with the Adjudication proceedings. It is accordingly ordered that main appellant shall deposit an amount of ₹ 20 lacs (Rupees twenty lacs only) within a period of 8 weeks and report compliance to the Adjudicating Authority. On verification of the payment of above deposit, Adjudicating Authority will decide the case afresh in denovo adjudicating, after giving all the relied upon documents to the appellants and after extending them opportunity of personal hearing. It is clarified that this Bench has not expressed any opinion on merits and has kept all the issues open.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1232
Addition to rebate to the retailers - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. has failed to record any finding in the assessment order that the case of the assessee is akin to the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. The arguments made by the ld. counsel for the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are that the assessee furnished audited accounts/tax audit report alongwith books of account and bills/vouchers for purchase/sales of liquor and relating to expenses were produced for verifications. The details and basis of valuation of closing stock were placed on record during the course of assessment proceedings. The state excise and taxation department keeps strict control and supervision over the liquor trade carried out by the assessee. The purchases of liquor can be made by the assessee against the permits issued by the state excise department and similarly the sales of the liquor by the assessee to the retailers having 1-2 licenses can only be made against the permits issued by the State Excise Department. The AO failed to rebut the contention of the assessee that the net rebate of ₹ 16586467/- is a part of the trading results and also the gross profit. The AO has tried to make out a case that the above stated amount of ₹ 16586467/- is the income of the assessee as per his own version by twisting the contentions of the assessee in written reply filed during the course of assessment proceedings by recording the finding that “ a fact that emerges is that whether the rebate received by the assessee is ultimately passed in toto to the retailers as per the assessee’s won version as stated above or not” because the word in toto has been introduced by the AO but the counsel of the assessee did not use this word in the written reply. The details of rebate received from the sellers from whom the liquor was purchased and paid to the purchasers L-2 License holders to whom the liquor was sold, alongwith the supporting evidence was filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and no defect was pointed out by the AO either during the course of the assessment proceeding or in the assessment order. No opportunity was allowed by the AO to the assessee before making the addition of ₹ 48,16,438/-.
The contentions of the AR of the assessee are factually correct and the AO has failed to point out any discrepancy in the books of account to justify his action of estimating the income of the assessee at ₹ 16586467/- as against the income of ₹ 11770029/- declared in the profit and loss account. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (2) TMI 1231
Registration granted to Assessee u/s. 12A cancelled - Held that:- It is not the case of the revenue before us that the dominant activities of the assessee are not fitting with the objects of the Council and that the dominant activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business or that the councils dominant activities have ceased to be for the purpose of advancement of any other objects of general public utility. Merely because the income of the assessee has crossed prescribed limit of ₹ 10 lakhs, that itself cannot be ground for cancellation of its registration invoking section 12AA(3) of the Act. If any of the income arising on the activities is not in accordance with the objects of the trust, the assessees income, at best, may not get the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Further for the previous year, during which the gross receipt income crosses limit of ₹ 10.00 lacs, the trust will not get exemption or benefit of its being charitable in nature despite its carrying out charitable activities. However, it will get such benefit if it is registered as charitable institution and income from business activities, as mentioned in first proviso to section 2(15), does not cross limit of ₹ 10.00 lacs.
Subject to our above observations, the impugned order of the DI.T(exemptions) is hereby set aside and the registration to the assessee council granted under section 12A of the Act is hereby ordered to be restored - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (2) TMI 1230
Addition on account of royalty payment - Held that:- Liable to be considered as standard bought-out components are such material on which no further processing is required and are directly fitted into the final product; and, cost of such material only needs to be deducted from the sale price to compute the royalty payable. Applying the said clarification to the present situation, considering the manufacturing process explained, it cannot be construed that the so-called constituent material are merely fitted into the final product; on the contrary, it is a case where such material also undergoes a chemical reaction in the process of producing the final product and the same are irretrievable once the finished product is manufactured. For the said reason also, in our considered opinion, the so-called ‘constituent materials’ classified by the TPO cannot be equated to standard bought-out components so as to reduce their cost from the sales value to compute the royalty payable. For all the above reasons, we therefore find no justification on the part of the TPO in rejecting the methodology adopted by the assessee to calculate net sales for the purposes of computing the royalty payable.
TPO considering 5% rate of royalty payment on export sales as arm’s length price as against 8% paid by the assessee - Held that:- We hold that the TPO erred in (i) re-working the stated value of the international transaction of royalty payment based on his interpretation of the expression ‘Net Sales’ and, (ii) considering the royalty payment by TNAPC to the AE as a comparable transaction under the CUP method for the purposes of determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction of royalty payment claimed by the assessee. As a consequence the adjustment/addition of ₹ 91,66,061/- made in respect of royalty payment is directed to be deleted.
Addition on account of the international transaction on export of a product namely, Trigonox 25C75 to the AE - Held that:- The adjusted price of ₹ 300/- per kg., in our view, is liable to be taken as an arm’s length price in respect of export of Trigonox 25C75 to the AE instead of the stated price of ₹ 239/- per kg.. As a result, the addition of ₹ 11,34,000/- made by the TPO on this count shall be scaled down to ₹ 5,49,000/-. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the adjustment on account of international transaction of export to the AE to ₹ 5,49,000/- instead of ₹ 11,34,000/2-6. Thus, on this aspect, assessee partly succeeds.
Addition on international transaction relating to receipt on intending commission and marketing support fee - selection of comoarable - Held that:- Alfred - Ostensibly, the financial data reflects inconsistent results, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the inconsistencies, it has been rightly excluded from the list of comparables.
M/s IDC (India) Ltd. - assessee is justified in claiming that concern IDC (India) Ltd. be considered as a comparable for the purposes of benchmarking international transactions of Intending commission and marketing support fees
The nature of activity being performed by the assessee in its Marketing and Sales support Segment have already been noted and on that basis we uphold assessee’s plea for exclusion on ICRA Online Ltd. (Information Services Segment) for the purposes of benchmarking its international transaction of Intending commission and marketing support fee for the assessment year 2007-08. Accordingly, the TPO is directed to re-work the adjustment on account of the Marketing and Sales support Services segment by excluding ICRA Online Ltd. from the list of comparables
-
2014 (2) TMI 1229
Transfer pricing adjustment - mam selected - CUP v/s TNMM - Held that:- As relying on earlier AY 2007-08 with regard to transfer pricing adjustment the appropriate method to be adopted was CUP in place of TNMM applied by the assessee. - Decided against assessee
Addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment without granting the benefit of volume, risk adjustments and other qualitative factors - Held that:- As on account of various factors which inter-alia include an element of bad debt risk involved in the case of three parties, which is much less probable in the case of related parties, the assessee was entitled to get discount of approximately 11%. . If the same is taken into consideration, according to the facts mentioned above, no addition on this issue will survive. The impugned addition is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition on notional interest income on alleged delay in collection of invoices - Addition made on the ground that the average realization period from the AE exceeds similar period in respect of non-AE transaction - Held that:- As the assessee did not charge any interest on non-AE transactions and in some cases the realization period of non-AE transactions was more than the similar realization period of AE transactions, hence no addition was called for.- Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance under section 14A - Held that:- It has been shown that assessee has its own sufficient funds which are sufficient to cover the investment from where the assessee has earned tax free income. Moreover, on the major portion of the interest the AO has accepted the submissions of the assessee in subsequent year, therefore, we are of the opinion that addition on interest component is not called for. We confirm the addition to the extent of ₹ 90,000/- and delete the addition of ₹ 10,34,917/- - Decided in favour of assessee partly
-
2014 (2) TMI 1228
Penalty u/s.271C - non deduction of tds - Held that:- As per the provisions of Section 273B no penalty u/s.273C shall be imposable in case of failure referred in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.
In the present case, the employer company has relied upon the provisions of Section 17(2) r.w.s 192 of the IT Act for the purpose that food allowance per meal ₹ 15 per day is exempted from tax and that employees were placed on remote areas; hence, not chargeable to tax. The assessee has pleaded that under bona fide belief it was decided that reimbursement of “canteen subsidy scheme” was not subject to TDS. We have noted that in the case of Muthoot Bankers, [2011 (9) TMI 638 - ITAT COCHIN ], it was held that no penalty is leviable if there is a bona fide omission in not deducting the tax at source. We have also examined the case laws as indicated by learned Sr.D.R. but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, those case laws are distinguishable on fact and law; hence, not helpful to the Revenue Department. Resultantly, we hereby affirm the view taken by learned CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (2) TMI 1227
Rent receipts - income from business or income from house property - inseparable project - Held that:- Where the assessee is engaged in the business of commercial complex and commercial exploitation of the property, the income earned from such activities constitutes "business income" of the assessee. The separate agreement made providing services and amenities clearly shows the indication to render commercial services to the tenants. The agreement for hiring and agreement for the services and the facilities were inextricably linked with similar tenures. Giving space with services and facilities which were varied and wide and such activities together would definitely constitute an organized structure for making profits, and would necessarily constitute a business and the relationship between the parties as distinguished from that merely of a landlord and his tenant.
Occupation of space was inseparable from the provision of services and amenities as held by the ITAT in the case of Gesco Corp (P) Ltd (2009 (4) TMI 549 - ITAT MUMBAI ).
Further, providing amenities like electricity, telephone, watch and ward etc are the services rendered by the assessee result of its activities carried on continuously in an organized manner with a set purpose and with a view to earn profit. Hence, all the activities which are subject matters of both the agreements entered into by the asssessee for rendering of services and letting of the office space are in the nature of commercial activities and income derived by assessee from shopping malls / business centre was assessable as "business income" and not as "income from house property" as held by the ITAT, Calcutta in the case of PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd ( 2007 (5) TMI 258 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A ) and the same view was taken by the ITAT Cuttack also in the case of Narayah Market Complex (2012 (4) TMI 467 - ITAT CUTTACK).
Thus we are of the opinion that the both the rental and service charges are inseparable and they should be treated as "business income" and not as "income from the house property‟ as held by the AO. Therefore, the decision of the CIT (A) in allowing the assessee‟s claim of depreciation on building by holding that the rental income was "income from business" is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (2) TMI 1226
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)( e) - Whether the Tribunal was right holding that the advance (rental) received by the assessee from the company in which he is a shareholder cannot be termed as a deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)( e)? - Held that:- The company had agreed to pay an advance of ₹ 10 lakhs when it had taken the first floor on lease for the purpose of meeting the cost of construction of the other three floors and that the lease deed provided explicitly that the advance so paid was to be adjusted against the rent payable for the other three floors. The amount of rent payable for those floors was also set out in the further lease. The advance therefore was required to be set off against the rents payable in future years and thus adjusted. The amount at ₹ 10 lakhs paid was clearly as advance, though it was an advance which was to be set off against the rents payable in future. - Decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1225
Eligible profit u/s 10B - inclusion of export profits as claimed by the assessee - reveision u/s 263 - Held that: - Since the issue in question stands squarely decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT Special Bench order in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. (2012 (4) TMI 345 - ITAT INDORE ), which has not been disturbed by any superior authority, is binding on us. Respectfully following the same, we hold that on merits the assessee’s computation of eligible profit u/s 10B is to be allowed after including the export profits as claimed by the assessee. In view thereof, without going into technicalities of validity of sec. 263 we uphold the action u/s 263 and the issue on merits is decided in favour of the assessee
............
|
9911796707
