9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a non-resident (that is to say, foreign) agent who carried on the business of selling Indian goods outside India cannot be said to be deemed income accrued or arising in India. Disallowance of additional depreciation - proof of activities carried out by the assessee amounts to manufacture or production as defined in section 2(29BA) - Held that:- Mining for the purpose of production of mineral ore falls within the ambit of the word ‘production’. The Division Bench of this Court had held that in such a process, ore has to be extracted or raised from earth. This activity is ‘production’, entitling the assessee to the benefit of Section 32(A) of the Act. Thus, there would be an allowable depreciation deduction in respect of the machinery us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sesa Resources Ltd will cover the third of these questions, numbered C . 3. The assessee in this case, Sesa Goa Ltd ( SGL ) is, like Sesa Resources Ltd, also engaged in mining, ore exports, shipping, shipbuilding and sales of certain qualities of ash and coke. The relevant assessment period is 2010 1011. SGL filed an e-return on 14th October 2015 declaring a total income of ₹ 15,54,29,26,836/-. This was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) and followed by a notice under section 143(2). The Assessing Officer ( AO ) by an order dated 11th January 2013 (i) disallowed ₹ 54,14,54,962 under Section 14(A); (ii) disallowed commission paid to non-residents in the amount of ₹ 5,07,06,761; (iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of CIT v Orient Goa Pvt Ltd (BOM) 325 ITR 554? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of additional depreciation amounting to ₹ 17,19,74,078/- by ignoring the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Gem India Manufacturing Co. (2001) 249 ITR 307 (SC) and Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 116 Taxman 1 (SC) and also the fact that the activities crried out by the assessee do not amount to manufacture or production as defined in section 2(29BA) of IT Act? 6. Our decision today in Sesa Resources Ltd fully covers item C . That question therefore does not arise. 7. As regards propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
