9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the appellant and in law, the impugned order of the Tribunal is not perverse as being opposed to common sense?" 3. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of dehydrated onions from raw onions. As the appellant's manufacturing unit was exporting 100% of its manufactured goods, it claimed relief under Section 10B of the Act. During the subject assessment year, the appellant filed the return of income declaring its total income 'Nil' after claiming exemption of Rs. 1.40 Crores under Section 10B of the Act. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant was also engaged in export trading of dehydrated onions and had for that purpose, purchased dehydrated onions of Rs. 11.19 Crores a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed by the appellant. 6. On further appeal, the Tribunal, on consideration of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded that the order of the Assessing Officer needed to be restored. The Tribunal also recorded the fact that the appellant has not maintained separate books of accounts in respect of manufacturing and trading activities and in these circumstances the application of method of turnover i.e. percentage of total sales to arrive at net profit attributable to trading activity and manufacturing activity as adopted by the Assessing Officer was in the present facts reasonable/ correct method to arrive at the profits eligible for exemption under Section 10B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not furnish the necessary information. However, it is also noticed by the Tribunal that the documents indicate that the profit of the appellant as per the tax audit report for the entire business activity is 6.14%, when the profit from actual manufacturing activity was 20.70%. It is a settled position that the claimant to a benefit of an exemption must establish its case for the exemption and the quantum of exemption it seeks by leading necessary evidence before the authorities. This the appellant failed to do. Reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fusion Software Engg. (P) Ltd. (supra), to our mind, is misplaced, as in the facts of that case, the exemption under Section 10A of the Act was denied in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
