9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E of the Act without analyzing merit of claim. It is for that reason that in the answer to question 78 Mr R.R. Chaturvedi made the disclosure. Subsequently, in consultation with Chartered accountants, when it was realized by Shri R. R. Chaturvedi that the claim made by the assessee firm was very much in accordance with law, the statement was retracted by filing an affidavit dated 30-8-05 which is forming part of paperbook page no 232 - 235. The CIT(A) has rightly accepted the justification of assessee in para 7.2 page 27 of his order by stating that "No addition could be made on the basis of such statement unless and until it is corroborated with the evidence. In other words, the retraction can be made on the basis of validity of claim. In the instant case, LNSEL is eligible to issue disclaimer certificate, as it is an exporting company. Further LNSEL claimed deduction u/s.10B of the Act on the value addition. LNSEL issued disclaimer certificate in form 10CCAG to assessee company with respect to appellant company's share in software export. The copy of Form 10CCAG is forming part of paperbook page nos. 44-60. In this regard, during the appellate proceedings, CIT(A) had correspon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed by assessee u/s.80HHE of the Act. Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- Assessee has merely stressed upon the fact that the transaction was entered through banking channels which meets the test of Section 68 of the Act. But this contention was not accepted by Revenue authorities as transactions through cheques cannot be considered to be sacrosanct in the absences of failure of assessee to prove the creditworthiness of lender as also the genuineness of transaction. The burden is on assessee to rebut the same, but assessee has not discharged the burden cast upon him in this regard to addition is question. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, even though transaction is through banking channel, as assessee could not prove the same with cogent evidence, so, CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same Estimation of business income - Held that:- As regards the letter to STPI, it was found evident that only certain ad hoc figures of exports were stated therein, as actual exports were done in the earlier years and the books of account did reflect the actual sales turnover which were also duly disclosed in the returns of income of the relevant assessment years and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zure action u/s.132(1) was undertaken on 23.03.2005. Assessee filed the return declaring total income of ₹ 19,60,460/-. The firm was stated to be conducting computer training courses and other related activities under the head Computer Training Division. It has stated during the year under consideration Computer Software Development Division for conducting software development and all other related services. It had two divisions of business i.e. (i) Computer Training Service Division and (ii) Computer Software Development Division. From the Software Development Division, it had shown net profit of ₹ 79,11,630/-, against which deduction u/s.80HHE claimed was ₹ 69,20,471/-. It claimed to have developed software and sold to M/s. Lee Nee Software (Export) Ltd. Kolkata (hereinafter after called as LNSEL ) and its three units viz. (i) M/s. Raj Software Services, (ii) M/s. L T Software Services (iii) M/s. Software Services. Assessing Officer found that these exporters had received export order from one Apkidukan.com Corporation , an America based company. Assessee supposedly developed the software for these concerns, which in turn exported it to Apkidukan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is being narrated as under: (1) The assessee has dealt with LNSL as a supporting manufacturer for their export to M/s. Apkidukaan.Com/ Merikitab.Com with maintenance contract for the same and was not having any direct relation with M/s. Apkidukaan.Com Corporation. Hence, it was not aware /concerned with the company Apkidukaan. Com Pvt. Ltd. or its office. (2) The job work charges were paid by the assesses to various staff and agencies. Mr. C.L. Deshpande who was Technical Director was looking after operational work and day to day activities has got the work executed by various staff and agencies. He was authorized to make necessary payment to the staff and the expenses incurred in vouchers seized for the same are accounted in the books of accounts towards expenses and has been reflected in the profit loss account and balance sheets. Further, TDS has also been deducted and paid on such job work charges. 3) Late Shri. C.L. Deshpande was only aware of technical details and from whom the work has been executed as he was the only person involved in appointing employees or freelancers and other agencies. Other partners were not involved in day to day software development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was done vide application dated 16-12-2000 and the STPI granted permission on 1/1/2001. It has enclosed copies of 4 agreements with Lee Nee Group dated 28-7-2000 and also the scope of work carried out. Further, it is reiterated that Shri C.L. Deshpande was the whole and sole person to manage the said division, who is no more. Further, it is staled that the premises were taken on lease, electricity expenses were incurred, new computers were purchased for fulfilling the contract. It has also filed sample copy of SOFTEX .which is a declaration for export of software by LNSL to Aapkidukan.Com Corporation, USA. It is also clarified that LNSL and its group was eligible to issue disclaimer certificate as the only requirement to be fulfilled for claiming 80HHE is that there should be an export of computer software and it is immaterial whether the same is developed by the assessee or purchased from market and exported. 3.2 On taking into consideration of above reply, Assessing Officer observed that assessee did not know anything about the development of software, did not know the precise nature of business or technical activities of M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, as per the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... What are the names complete addresses of the owners /Directors of Aapkidukaan.com Corporation? The following are the owners from April 10,2000 through March, 21, 2005. a) Kishore Bubna 204, McDuff Avenue, Fremont, California 94539. b) Anita Gupta 204, McDuff Avenue, Fremont, California 94539. c) Schwark Satyavolu India. 4 Is Aapkidukaan.Com Corporation a company registered in the USA? Yes. This is a U.S. Company registered in California. 5 Name complete address of the directors/partners of the company/firm, if the account holders are of any company/firm See item No.3 6 Copies of statements of their bank accounts. The company has two bank accounts, however, the owners of Aapkidukaan. Com were not the owners of these accounts. They do not know the names and addresses of the directors/partners of the company/firm, of these bank accounts. 7 Nature of the business carried out by the holders of the above said two accounts in U.S.A. Copies of statements of accounts (Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it had explained the source code of the products manufactured by it and sold to LNSL, who in turn had exported and received foreign exchange for claiming exemptions/deductions as it stated that it was not able to explain how the two bank accounts were operated by Aapkidukaan.com Corporation, but receipts of foreign exchange were received by LNSL for export of software to Aapkidukaan.com Corporation. If the assessee had developed the software transmitted to LNSEL, who in turn transmitted to Aapkidukaan.com Corporation, there would have been any instance detected during the course of inquiry by Foreign Tax Division, the assessee would have been able to preserve the source code, employees would have been able to answer positively and there would not have been any ambiguity in the bank accounts held by Aapkidukaan. com Corporation, USA, from which foreign exchange has been received by the principal exporter. 3.8 It was observed by Assessing Officer that assessee had received advance payments of ₹ 10,84,05,000/- from LNSL without having made any sales. All the purchases were quarter ending June, 2002 to March, 2005, but assessee claimed deduction U/S.80HHE on above receipts for AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he software developed by assessee was bogus. 3.11 According to Assessing Officer, as per letter dated 07.07.2003 of STP Bhuwaneshwar, assessee had not started any commercial production within the initial validity period of three years. In view of above discussion, the deduction claimed u/s.80HHE of the Act and job work charges pertaining to A.Ys. 2001-02 and 2002-03 were also disallowed on the same reasoning being bogus. 4. Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of assessee by observing as under: 7. I have carefully considered the above facts and find sufficient force in the contentions of the appellant. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is based on half baked findings and without appreciating the facts of the case properly. The conclusion is drawn against the appellant mainly on presumptions and surmises and is not substantiated with cogent evidences. The observations and findings of the Assessing Officer have been properly countered by the appellant and after evaluating such replies/arguments, my own findings are narrated in the coming paras below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) was made subject to detection of undisclosed income from the books of account and documents found during search. It was stated that export proceeds received were duly recorded in the regular books of account on accrual basis and as and when the income accrued, deduction was claimed as per the Act and was also allowed in respective assessment orders. No addition could be made on the basis of such statement unless and until, it is corroborated with evidences. In the present case, it appears that the managing partner made such a disclosure more in a confused state of mind, rather than making a conscious declaration, more so, in the light of disclosed facts as per the returns filed much earlier than the search. Therefore, some element of coercion cannot be ruled out completely. The corroborative evidences brought on record are not conclusive and infallible and have been successfully rebutted by the appellant. 7.3 It may be stated here that similar disclosure and subsequent retraction has been a matter of dispute before various courts from time to time. Reference could be made to the case of DCIT vs Samita Marine Kakinada(2007) 10 SOT 335(Mum) where it was held that even though the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(URO). 7.4 In respect of the observations made by the Assessing Officer that LNSEL did not make any export, on careful consideration of the above facts and going through the copies of SOFTEX forms, I do not find any merit in the conclusion drawn by him. Under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Regulations, 2000/Exim Policy etc such type of business is required to make a declaration of export of software in Softex form which is necessarily to be submitted to the designated official of the Department of Electronics, Government of India at the Software Technology Parks of India (STPIs) etc. Perusal of such forms submitted by LNSEL and related concerns clearly shows that the competent authority on behalf of Department of Electronics, in the space provided in the said form, has duly certified that the software described above was actually transmitted and the export/royalty value declared by the exporter has been found to be in order and accepted by them. 7.5 The contention of the Assessing Officer regarding duplication in the claim is unfounded. Perusal of the copies of certificate issued by LNSEL and associates in Form no10CCAC in terms of Rule 18BBA(8) clearly shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the appellant. I find that the issue raised by the Assessing Officer is not relevant at all. Apart from the certificate being irrelevant for the years under consideration, the Assessing Officer cannot ignore the certificate issued by STPI to LNSEL from 30.4.1992. The declarations made in the softex form from time to time makes such an objection all the more irrelevant., having no bearing on the genuineness of the claim of the exporter as well that of the appellant in the capacity of supporting manufacturer. 7.7 Regarding the failure of the appellant to state that source code, re is evident that the Assessing Officer was duly intimated of the reasons for non furnishing of the same. The Assessing Officer has not made any counter comments on such unavoidable circumstances stated by the appellant and went on to link up such non-production to the genuineness of the export itself though the same was a fait accompli. Had in his opinion source code carried such an importance, nothing prevented him to verify the contentions of the appellant which appears to have been completely overlooked. No effort seems to have been made with the Investigation Wing of the department which carrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts made were duly recorded in the books of accounts and relevant vouchers found during the search only corroborate the genuineness of such payments. The Assessing Officer has also overlooked the fact that TDS was duly deducted and paid to the government account. Nothing has been brought on record to show that all such facts borne from the books of account were bogus or incorrect as the books have not been rejected either. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the appellant was allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the said persons as per request made during assessment proceedings though the statement of the said persons were used against the appellant and in a way, they were used as witnesses of the department. The reasons for denial of natural justice is not comprehensible though the facts remains that such statements have been treated as clinching evidence by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Assessing Officer has violated the principles of natural justice in the matter. It may be stated here in the case of State of Kerala vs K.T.Shaduli Grocery Dealer AIR 1977 SC 1627, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a Taxing Officer is under obligation to comply with the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31.3.2003 issued by the appellant, it is evident that TDS was duly made on job work charges. Likewise, another computer profession Ms. Prajakta Shinde in the affidavit dated 3.12.2007 affirmed similar facts. It is also stated by her that she confirmed job work charges to the department consequent to search operations in March 2005. Besides, It may also be staled here that the appellant could not counter the findings of the Assessing Officer as such persons could not be traced out as the matter was quite old and the appellant had stopped such activity long time back. Thus, it could not be expected to do an impossible task. However, it has to be appreciated that the appellant had to undergo search and seizure operation and the vouchers and bills relating to such job work were found during search. In fact, presence of such evidences at the time of search only strengthens the contentions of the appellant that actual work in this regard was done or else no such evidences could have been found, had the claim been bogus and cooked up. Thus, such reliance on the statements, contrary to overwhelming evidences in favour of the claim of the appellant, cannot be considered enough for sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re in the same filed. Shri S. M. Gupta proposed for the business of developing software for M/s. Lee Nee Software (Export) Ltd., which was accepted by assessee firm in consultation with technical Director, Mr. C. L. Deshpande and the first contract was entered into on 28.12.1999 as a test case and was completed successfully. 5.1 On successful completion of the same, one large contract was received by the appellant firm. The details of the contracts are as under: Name of the Party Date of Contract M/s. Lee Nee Software (Exports) Ltd. (LNSEL) 28.07.2000 M/s. L T Soft services 28.07.2000 M/s Raj Soft Services 28.07.2000 M/s. M S Soft Services 28.07.2000 Out of the above four parties, M/s. L T Soft Services, M/s. Raj Soft Services and M/s. M S Soft Services amalgamated with LNSEL vide Calcutta High Court order dated 18.09.2000 w.e.f. 28.02.2000. Hence virtually all the four contracts were entered with LNSEL. Copy of all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e then, LNSEL is eligible for exemption u/s.10B of the Act. LNSEL, on 27.01.2000, undertook a major project being an order received from Aapkidukaan.com Corporation, which is a US based company, for developing a portal of Aapkidukaan.com. The main object of the said portal was to grab US market for Indian goods and services and thus to create a largest online shopping mall for Indian goods in US Market. Said Indian company, Aapkidukaan.com Pvt. Ltd. was established in 2001, which was engaged in the marketing of the said portal in India, by procuring clients in India to have their virtue shops on the portal through its offices/associates in Kolkata, Pune, Banglore, Bhubhaneshwar or its franchises. 5.6 LNSEL itself designed the main portal of Aapkidukan.com and decided to outsource designing of various modules and templates for the said software. For said purpose, orders were placed wih various other software developers apart from the appellant firm. Once the work outsourced was completed and received by LNSEL through email, the various parts outsourced to different developers were assembled and linked with the main portal. To this extent, there was a value addition by LNSEL. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made with the persons to whom appellant firm had claimed to have paid job work charges denied having worked for them. Further letter received from STPI Bhubaneshwar also states that no activity had been carried out. 8. Without prejudice to all the above allegations which prove that export of software were not genuine, the learned Assessing Officer has calculated excess deduction u/s 80 HHE claimed by the appellant and correlating the same with the disclosure made by the appellant. 5.8 All of the allegations of Assessing Officer are being dealt with hereunder: 5.8.1 First objection of Assessing Officer is that Shri R. R. Chaturvedi was not having any knowledge about the development of software and the appellant firm had no previous expertise in development and export of software's. The said business proposition had come to Shri R. R. Chaturvedi,, through luck and not through efforts or knowledge. A person can carry on any business without having any previous knowledge with respect to said business. Shri R. R. Chaturvedi grabbed an opportunity on receipt of proposal since he had at his disposal, Shri C. L. Deshpande who was technically qualified. He undertook a respons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said disclosure was prompted by an alleged mistaken claim u/s. 80HHE of the Act without analyzing merit of claim. It is for that reason that in the answer to question 78 Mr R.R. Chaturvedi made the disclosure. Subsequently, in consultation with Chartered accountants, when it was realized by Shri R. R. Chaturvedi that the claim made by the assessee firm was very much in accordance with law, the statement was retracted by filing an affidavit dated 30-8-05 which is forming part of paperbook page no 232 - 235. The CIT(A) has rightly accepted the justification of assessee in para 7.2 page 27 of his order by stating that No addition could be made on the basis of such statement unless and until it is corroborated with the evidence. In other words, the retraction can be made on the basis of validity of claim. 5.8.3 Regarding M/s. LNSEL is only engaged in trading of software and they are not manufacturing any software. Further, there was no mention in the return of income of LNSEL that it had given disclaimer certificate to the appellant firm and thus it has violated the provisions of Income Tax Act. LNSEL claimed exemption u/s. 10 A on the same profits on which the assessee firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in respective years was duly accepted by the department in the assessment made and there was no dispute in this regard excepting in AY 2000-01 in case of one of the erstwhile amalgamating company M/s L. T Estate Pvt Ltd in which disallowance of deduction u/s 10B was on account of non-receipt of foreign exchange was allowed by the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata Bench in its order dated 12.5.2004. It may also be stated here that on correspondence made by undersigned with the assessing officer concerned of LNSEL, Kolkata, it has been intimated vide letter dated 10.12.2008 that there was no dispute pending with regard to claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act and no recourse was taken to the provisions of section 147 for AYs 2000-01 to 2002-03. Thus the issue regarding claim of deduction u/s 10B in this case of which the appellant is supporting manufacturer, is settled and accordingly fully allowed. As such, the claim of the appellant cannot be denied on this ground also. Thus, it is clear on the basis of material on record that claim of assessee u/s.80HHE of the Act is in order. 5.8.4 Next issue is that the source code of the softwares developed could not be provided by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the receipt of foreign exchange by LNSEL. The appellant firm cannot be expected to know the internal affairs of Aapkidukaan.com Corporation with whom, assessee firm had no privity of contract or transaction. As assessee firm had direct transaction with LNSEL, it has tried to enquire with them and provide as many information as is relevant to establish the claim of assessee firm. The assessee firm was never in direct touch with M/s. Aapkidukaan.com Corporation and hence to providing such information was beyond the scope of assessee firm. CIT(A) rightly held that the report of FTD does not falsify the claim of export made by LNSEL and it concerns itself more about the business activities of Aapkidukan and its existence as an entity. On both these counts the report of the FTD confirms the existence and business activities. Accordingly, it was rightly held that the point raised by Assessing Officer does not carry significance vis- -vis the appellant, so long as the export made by LNSEL have been accepted to be genuine by Assessing Officer in its case. In view of above discussion, this object was rightly noted out by CIT(A) while granting relief to assessee. 5.8.6 Next objection is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found during the search only corroborate the genuineness of such payments. The assessing officer has also overlooked the fact that TDS was duly deducted and paid to the government account. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that all such facts borne from the books of account were bogus or incorrect as the books of account have not been rejected. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the appellant was allowed the opportunity to cross examine the said persons as per request made during the assessment proceedings though the statement of the said persons were used against the appellant and in a way, they were used as witnesses of the department, which is not justified. 5.8.7 Other objection of Assessing Officer has been that there was some discrepancies with regard to quantum of the export, which was observed by him from the communication of Additional Director, STPI addressed to assessee. Assessing Officer observed that commercial production has not started and quantity of production was also disputed. In this regard, stand of assessee has been that assessee submitted clarification vide letter dated 15.07.2003 inter alia submitted that they had already started commerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction of 50% on depreciation on car, needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 9. In the result, assessee s appeal is dismissed. 10. In ITA No.1527/Mum/2009 for A.Y.2001-02, Revenue has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,67,33,946/- on account of disallowance of the claim u/s.80HHE of the I.T. Act, 1961, made by the Assessing Officer. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 23,08,200/- on account of disallowance of the Software Development charges, made by the Assessing Officer. 11. First issue is with regard to addition of ₹ 7,67,33,946/- on account of disallowance of the claim u/s.80HHE of the Act. Similar issue arose in A.Y.2000-01, which has been discussed and decided by us in para 6 of this order in favour of assessee. Facts being similar, so, following same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of CIT(A) who has deleted the addition of ₹ 7,67,33,946/- on account of disallowance of claim u/s.80HHE of the Act. Same is upheld. 12. Next ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have been availed for the said purposes. Assessee has merely stressed upon the fact that the transaction was entered through banking channels which meets the test of Section 68 of the Act. But this contention was not accepted by Revenue authorities as transactions through cheques cannot be considered to be sacrosanct in the absences of failure of assessee to prove the creditworthiness of lender as also the genuineness of transaction. The burden is on assessee to rebut the same, but assessee has not discharged the burden cast upon him in this regard to addition is question. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, even though transaction is through banking channel, as assessee could not prove the same with cogent evidence, so, CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Same is upheld. 17. In the result, appeal of assessee for A.Y. 2001-02 is dismissed. 18. In ITA No.1528/Mum/2009 for A.Y.2002-03, Revenue has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,33,88,045/- on account of disallowance of the claim u/s.80HHE of the I.T. Act, 1961, made by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. The appellant prays that the disallowance of ₹ 1,25,028 may please be allowed, as the car was used for the purpose of the appellant s business. 23. At the outset of hearing, ld. Authorized Representative did not press ground nos.1 2. So, same are dismissed as not pressed. 24. Regarding issue of depreciation on car to 50% of the amount claimed of ₹ 2,50,028/- by assessee. We find that Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation of ₹ 2,50,028/-. Similar issue came before us in A.Y.2000-01. Fact being similar, so following same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of CIT(A) who had rightly restricted the disallowance 50%. Same is upheld. 25. In the result, appeal of assessee for A.Y. 2002-03 is dismissed. 26. In ITA No.1402/Mum/2009 for A.Y.2003-04, Revenue has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not have allowed the appeal of the assessee in facts and circumstances of the case and on the contrary should have confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar also, which was deleted by CIT(A) by observing as under: 5. I have carefully considered the above facts. In so far as the estimation of business income of ₹ 15 lakh is concerned, I do not find any merit therein. As regards the letter to STPI, it is evident that only certain ad hoc figures of exports were stated therein, as actual exports were done in the earlier years and the books of account did reflect the actual sales turnover which were also duly disclosed in the returns of income of the relevant assessment years and the said exports were duly accepted to be genuine in the original assessment orders. No business activity, not to speak of any export has been carried on during the relevant year. Moreover, there was no corroborative evidence to show that the appellant was engaged in any such business activity during the relevant year Thus, not much importance can be attributed to such a declaration which also appears to have been made on estimate and ad hoc basis only with a bona fide business expediency. Accordingly, the addition made is deleted. 28.2 Same has been opposed before us on behalf of Revenue inter alia submitted that the order of CIT(A) be set aside a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 15,57,488/-. The CIT(A) enhanced the assessed income by disallowing business expenses of ₹ 15,57,488/- on the ground that there is no business activity during the year. At the outset of hearing, ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the issue is covered with ITAT order in assessee s own case for AY 2004- 05, wherein ITAT, SMC, Bench, Mumbai has allowed the business loss of ₹ 36,41,385/- by observing as under: 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and perused the material placed before me. I find that in the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer considered the facts of the assesse s case in detail while allowing the business loss of ₹ 36,41,385/- and he has accepted that the business continued since the assessment year 2002-03. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the arguments of both sides, in my opinion, it is the case of temporary lull in the business in the year under consideration and therefore, it cannot be said that there was a closure of the business. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the business expenditure in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
