9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OURT] assessee s wireline logging and perforation equipments are eligible for a higher depreciation @ 100% under cl. (ii) of s. 32(1) of the Act, r/w item III(3)(ix)(b) of the schedule of rates of depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Disallowance u/s 14A - addition @ 15% of the exempted income earned by the assessee company during the year under assessment being the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income by the assessee company - HELD THAT:- As assessee has stated to have already disallowed expenditure directly related to earning exempt dividend income - when investment is made by the assessee company time and manpower need to be utilized to steer the investment in right places so we reasonably restrict the disallowance made by the AO and CIT (A) from 15% to 5% of the gross exempt dividend income earned by the assessee during the year under assessment. Service-tax payable - AO held the service-tax payable as a trading receipt on the ground that the assessee has raised sales bills and charged service-tax on the same and service-tax is in the nature of revenue receipt - HELD THAT:- When undisputedly aforesaid amount as service-tax paya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Accountant Member And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR ORDER PER BENCH : Since common questions of facts and law have been raised in the aforesaid cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue, the same are being disposed off by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. Appellant, M/s. HLS Asia Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ) by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 04.01.2010, 30.05.2014, 31.10.2011 20.01.2014 passed by the CIT (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi, CIT (Appeals)-V, New Delhi, CIT (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi CIT (Appeals) - XI, New Delhi qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2007-08, 2007-08 2008-09 respectively on the grounds inter alia that :- ASSESSEE S APPEALS ITA No.1712/Del./2010 (AY : 2004-05) 1. That the CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in denying the deduction under section 80-18 of the in respect of its undertakings engaged in wire line logging perforation activity for mineral oil concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in mineral oil concerns holding that- (a) The appellant did not extract, produce mineral oils and, therefore, it could not claim the status of a mineral oil concern (b) The appellant was not a mineral oil concern, and is merely providing support services with respect to the activity of wireline logging and perforation, which was a small fraction of series of activities undertaking by mineral oil concerns. (c) Nature of operations of mineral oil concerns were significantly different from that of the appellant as regards its functions and use of plant and machinery. 10. Without prejudice, that the CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation on additions/disallowances made in the earlier years while computing revised written down value of fixed assets. 11. That the CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of expenditure amounting to ₹ 7,56,940/- by applying ad hoc percentage of 15% of the gross dividend under section 14A of the Act, holding the same to be expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. (a) That the CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that Rule 80 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngaged in manufacture or production of articles and things. (ii) The appellant was allowed depreciation only @ 15%. (iii) The commission of ₹ 33,51,000 as paid to the managing Director who was not shareholder and, therefore, was not liable to be disallowed in terms of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. ITA No.4144/Del./2014 (AY : 2007-08) 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts of the case and in law in restricting the appellant's claim of deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') , in respect of profits of Agartala unit to 30% as against the deduction of 100% in respect of said unit claimed by the appellant. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts of the case and in law in not appreciating that Agartala unit of the appellant being set up in north-eastern region, was eligible deduction @ 100% of the profit of the business, in terms of the second proviso to subsection (4) of section 80-IB of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999. ITA No.5511/Del./2012 (AY : 2007-08) 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of profits of Agartala unit to 30% as against the deduction of 100% in respect of said unit claimed by the appellant. 1.1 That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts of the case and in law in not appreciating that Agartala unit of the appellant being set up in north-eastern region, was eligible deduction @ 100% of the profit of the business, in terms of the second proviso to sub-section (4) of section 80-1S of the Act read with notification No. SO 627 (E) dated 04-08-1999. 1.2 Without prejudice that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in making extraneous observations that for deciding the manufacturing activity, it is a vital factor how the Department of Central Excise has treated the process undertaken by the appellant and whether the product ('log') was an excisable goods or the appellant's work was simply like a service provider. It appears that the appellant's case was not examined from this angle and perhaps these facts were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court. It is without prejudice to the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the disallowance of ₹ 6,84,02,958/-made by the AO on account of depreciation out-of total depreciation of ₹ 9,12,03,944/- claimed in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground. ITA No.2241/Del./2014 (AY : 2008-09) 1. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,94,36,126/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB claimed @ 30% despite the fact that the assessee company is not manufacturing concern and is only a services provider? 2. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,94,36,126/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB claimed @ 30% despite the fact that the assessee company is not registered for excise duty only service provider and this fact was not brought to notice of Hon'ble Delhi High Court; and that the CIT (A) was not correct in allowing the deduction after noting the fact as the decision of the Hon'ble Court was based on different facts? 3. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers with regard to activities of wireline logging and perforation which are very small fraction of series of operation undertaken by mineral concern and thereby allowed the depreciation in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground @ 25% as against 80% claimed by the assessee company and disallowed the depreciation to the tune of ₹ 3,05,10,460/-, ₹ 5,28,34,097/- ₹ 9,12,03,944/- for AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 2006-07 respectively. 7. In AY 2004-05, AO made disallowance of expenditure on (ad-hoc) basis to the tune of ₹ 7,56,940/- @ 15% of the gross dividend u/s 14A by holding that these were the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. 8. In AY 2005-06, assessee company shown an amount of ₹ 51,43,856/- during years on account of service tax but remaining unpaid. The assessee has also not passed service tax through profit loss account. Assessee had raised part bills with service tax with charge to the same. However, AO added the amount of ₹ 51,43,856/- to the income of the assessee as trading receipts subject to its entitlement to deduction as and when it is paid to the Government or written off from customer a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AYs 1989-90 to 2003-04 (supra) as under :- 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the assessee can be said to be an ― industrial undertaking engaged in the business of ― manufacturing or production of an article or a thing for the purpose of section 32A and section 80-IA/80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 14. Aforesaid substantial questions of law have been decided by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- 26. It is clear from the aforesaid judicial authorities that in order to find out whether any particular business activity amounts to ― manufacturing or ― production for the purpose of various tax incentives under IT Act, each case is required to be examined in the light of facts and circumstances of that very case. The most important aspect of this exercise should be the analysis of the process involved in the impugned activity and an enquiry into the nature of transformation that the product has undergone to find out whether it is distinct in identity from the raw commodity involved in its manufacture. 27. In the instant case, produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the logging tools. After processing the data the computer gives an output called logs' which are said to be valuable processed data/ evaluative information/ interpretation imprinted on special film/ papers etc. and recorded on digital tapes. 29. The learned counsel for assessee further submitted that in respect of each of its contract the assessee sets up a full-fledged base at a centralized location and mobilizes/ installs equipments and deputes personnel at each such base. Each such base under each contract is claimed as a separate industrial undertaking. The facilities provided by the assessee for each such base comprise establishment of laboratory workshop, tools calibration facilities, establishment of computer centre, accounts administration/ operation office, godown, stores, communication and transport facilities, special protective storage for radio-active material and residence for personnel. 30. After referring to various activities undertaken at a specific unit, Mr. Vohra, learned counsel for the assessee pleaded that the logs generated by it are ― an article or a thing and the process of generating the same amounts to manufacturing/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.H. Kapadia, J. (as His Lordship was then) in CIT Vs. Oracle Software India Ltd. (Supra) that the Department needs to take into account the ground realities of the business and sometimes over-simplified tests create confusion, particularly, in modern times when technology grows each day. 32. Even from another perspective, which forms the second limb of the assessee's argument, the case tilts in the favour of assessee. Mr. Vohra has tried to draw an analogy between the production of logs by using wireline logging equipments on the one hand and the production of X-Ray and ultrasound report sheets using X-Ray and Ultrasound machines on the other hand which have been held to be eligible for investment allowance under section 32A in various judicial pronouncements. Aforesaid second limb of the argument of Mr. Vohra is of vital importance because the AO itself, while framing the assessment order dated 23.03.1995 for the assessment year 1992-93 had relied upon the same analogy to come to sharply opposite conclusions. The same can be reproduced as under: Can we say X-Ray machine is manufacturing X- Ray? Obviously no. Because it is only taking the information of the hum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in favour of the assessee company. Consequently, Grounds No.1 to 8 of ITA NO.1712/Del./2010 (AY : 2004-05) Grounds No.1 2 of ITA No.4144/Del./2014 (AY : 2007-08) of assessee s appeal are determined in favour of the assessee and Ground No.2 of ITA No.323/DEL/2012 (AY : 2005-06), Ground No.1 of ITA No.5855/Del/2011 (AY : 2006-07) Grounds No.1 2 of ITA No.2241/Del/2014 (AY : 2008-09) of Revenue s appeal are determined against the Revenue. GROUNDS NO.9 10 OF ITA NO.1712/DEL/2010 AY : 2004-05 (ASSESSEE S APPEAL) GROUND NO.3 OF ITA NO.323/DEL/2012 AY : 2005-06 (REVENUE S APPEAL) GROUND NO.2 OF ITA NO.5855/DEL/2011 AY : 2006-07 (REVENUE S APPEAL) 16. So far as allowing the depreciation @ 25% as against 80% claimed by the assessee in respect of plant machinery owned and used below the ground in field operation in mineral oil concern is concerned, this issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee company by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in assessee s own case (supra) by framing the substantive question of law as under:- 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the assessee is entitled to a higher depr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in field operations (below ground), but not including kerbside pumps including under-ground tanks and fittings used in field operations (distribution) by mineral oil concerns. Column 2 corresponding to the above entry provides depreciation @ 100% for the items described in the said entry. 48. The table of rates of depreciation in Appendix I to the Rules prescribes a single rate of depreciation for the assets falling within a particular block of assets. It does not prescribe differential rates of depreciation with reference to the ownership of the asset It would be pertinent to note here that the special rate of depreciation for the main item III- Machinery and Plant have been prescribed with reference to the nature of the particular asset and the character of its user including the types of business and the environmental conditions in which it is used. When the OIL has certified in this regard, that the wireline logging perforation equipments/tools which are used by the assessee are similar to those equipments/ tools owned and used by mineral oil concerns and when there is no shadow is casted over the fact that the similar assets would qualify for a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade being the expenditure incurred to earn the dividend income was to be made on the basis of reasonableness. AO as well as CIT(A) have made disallowance by applying the ad hoc percentage of 15% of the gross dividend u/s 14A of the Act. 21. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned disallowance contended that as on 31.03.2004 and 31.03.2003 year under assessment, assessee company was having share capital and reserves surplus of ₹ 4,13,322/- ₹ 4,37,229/- and investment was ₹ 1,88,224/- and ₹ 69,300/- respectively. So, the assessee has earned the dividend income on the investment made out of surplus funds in mutual funds. It is further contended by the ld. AR for the assessee that no effort and time was utilized in receiving the dividend income from mutual funds which are governed by SEBI Guidelines nor the assessee is having any separate Department or persons exclusively engaged in looking after investment activities and there is no proximate nexus between the earning of the said exempt income. It is also the case of the assessee company that during the year under assessment, net income of ₹ 0.50 crores was credited by the assessee to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in tax audit report nor the assessee has claimed deduction of service-tax payable to the Government, there is no question of disallowance of the deductions not claimed by the assessee. 27. Hon ble Delhi High court in case of CIT vs. Noble and Hewitt (I) P. Ltd. (supra) decided the identical issue by determining the following findings :- Held, dismissing the appeal, that since the assessee did not debit the amount to the profit and loss account as an expenditure nor claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessee was following that mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise. 28. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 51,43,856/- made by the AO treating the service-tax receipt as trading receipt, hence, Ground No.4 of ITA No.323/Del/2012 (AY : 2005-06) of Revenue s appeal is hereby deleted. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ITA NO.1712/DEL/2010 - AY : 2004-05 (ASSESSEE S APPEAL) ITA NO.4144/DEL/2014 - AY : 2007-08 (ASSESSEE S APPEAL) 29. Assessee company by filing separate applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f additional ground was never part of the return of income nor any such ground was raised before the AO/CIT(A); that new claim of 80IB is not a pure question of law as it requires elaborate enquiry by the AO and that when prima facie it is not a mineral based industry no deduction is admissible and prayed for rejection of the application. 31. Bare perusal of the additional grounds raised by the assessee company in AYs 2004-05 2007-08 goes to prove that the issue is sought to be raised by way of additional grounds is qua admissibility of deduction u/s 80IB @ 100% of the profit of undertaking by Duliajan unit being a mineral based industry in terms of Notification No.SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999 read with Second Proviso to sub-section (4) of section 80IB of the Act. In AY 2004-05, assessee claimed deduction @ 30% whereas it was required to be claimed @ 100%. Similarly, in AY 2007-08, assessee company failed to claim the deduction. It is the settled principle of law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) that in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee, the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be verified by the assessing authority as to the deductions claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB (4) of the Act @ 100% in the light of the Notification No.SO 627 (E) (supra). In AY 2004-05, this question was there before the AO wherein the assessee company has claimed 30% deduction as against admissible deduction of 100%. However, in AY 2007-08, this deduction was not claimed. 33. But since it is a pure question of law going to the roots of the case necessary to be adjudicated for correct tax liability of the assessee, the additional grounds raised by the assessee company in AY 2004-05 2007-08 are allowed. Arguments raised by the ld. CIT DR and case laws relied upon is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 34. Now, we would proceed to adjudicate the additional grounds raised by the assessee company in AYs 2004-05 and 2007-08. 35. Undisputedly, in AY 2004-05, assessee company has claimed deduction u/s 80IB (4) in respect of unit at Duliajan @ 30% of the profit of the said eligible unit. It is also not in dispute that in AY 2007-08, assessee company has not claimed any such deduction u/s 80IB (4) of the Act qua its Duliajan unit. Keeping in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raising additional ground and by seeking to lead additional evidence. 40. However, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the application for raising additional ground as well as for leading additional evidence on the grounds inter alia that AO has not given his report on admissibility of the additional evidence despite several reminders; that the additional evidence given by the assessee in the shape of certificate in the form No.10CCB issued by Chartered Accountant as well as long list of purchases made by it in March 2004, August 2004 and February 2005 for setting up a new unit at Duliajan which cannot be verified at this stage and that no reason for not producing these details in the proceeding of respective years has been given by the assessee. 41. However, we are of the considered view that this issue being identical to the issue raised by the assessee company in AYs 2004-05 and 2007-08 by way of additional grounds having been decided by the Bench in favour of the assessee as per findings given in preceding paras, so for the same reasoning additional grounds as well as additional evidence sought to be raised/led by assessee before the ld. CIT (A) is allowed. Since this identical issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omission to raise the aforesaid grounds was neither willful nor deliberate; that assessee company has entered into a contract with Bangladesh Gas Fields Company Ltd. (BGFCL) to carry out wireline logging and perforation related operations in Bangladesh and has accounted for revenue of ₹ 4,37,30,170/- in respect of this contract; that as per terms of contract between assessee company and BGFCL, BGFCL was liable to make payment to the assessee company on net of tax basis and TDS liability in respect of payment to assessee was to be grossed up; that at the time of filing the return of income, in absence of TDS certificate from BGFCL, the assessee company did not get the tax deducted and deposited with Bangladesh Government treasury by BGFCL and also not accounted for in the books of account on the basis of principle of prudence as per relevant accounting in India; that now in view of TDS certificate received from BGFCL, assessee company is entitled for the claim and such TDS withheld by BGFCL in respect of the income earned from Bangladesh; that in terms of the Article 25 of Indo- Bangladesh Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement read with section 90 (2) tax paid by Indian Resi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Act as well as Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and after discussing the decision rendered by Hon ble Apex Court cited as CIT vs. Assam Frontier Tea Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 549 (SC), CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), on the issue of power of Tribunal to entertain additional grounds held that, the Tribunal is empowered to entertain a ground beyond those incorporated in memorandum of appeal though the party urging the said ground has neither appealed before it nor has filed a cross objection in the appeal filed by the other party provided relevant facts on which such grounds are to be founded are available on record, by returning following findings:- 30. As already noticed by us, the facts and the sequence of events narrated in the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal and those set out in the statement of the case are not in dispute. The core question is whether the Tribunal ought to have- considered the plea of the applicantcompany that it was entitled to the benefit of weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act in the absenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme of the Rules read as a whole does not suggest that the Rules in any way have the effect of curtailing or circumscribing the power, authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal in dealing with matters at its disposal. We have not been able to read any prohibition in the rules totally precluding the Tribunal from considering any ground beyond those mentioned in the memorandum of appeal filed by a party, whether the assessee or the Department, in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the other side projecting the new ground. It is a settled principle of law that procedural law is the hand maid of justice and has to be so interpreted to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. Considering the language used in Section 254(1) of the Act conferring powers on the Tribunal which is in the widest possible terms, we feel guided in this regard by the emphatic observations of the apex court contained in its decision of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383. We have also taken note of the observations of the apex court to the effect that the purpose of the assessment proceeding before the taxing authority is to assess correctly the tax liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the other party. We must however hasten to add that in order to enable either the assessee or the Department to urge a ground in the appeal filed by the other side, the relevant facts on which such ground is to be founded should be available on record. In the absence of such primary facts, in our opinion, neither the assessee nor the Department can be permitted to urge any ground other than those which are incorporated in the memorandum of appeal filed by the other party. In other words, if the assessee or the Department, without filing any appeal or a cross-objection seeks to urge a ground other than the grounds incorporated in the memorandum of appeal filed by the other side, the evidentiary facts in support of new ground must be available on record. 32. For the view that we have taken as above, we hold that the Tribunal erred in not considering the contention of the assesseeapplicant company that the warehouse charges was covered by Sub-clause (iv) of Section 35B(1)(b) of the Act only on the ground that the applicant-company had not filed any appeal or cross-objection. We therefore answer the question referred, in the affirmative and remand the proceeding to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hermal Power Company (supra), the taxmen are required to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee which includes admissibility of the deductions if any; that rule or procedure are hand-maid of justice and merely on the ground that the assessee has omitted to file the appeal or cross objection, the additional grounds raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue are maintainable because ultimately the net result of the assessment proceedings should be correct assessment of the tax liability of the assessee company, the application filed by the assessee company for additional grounds is partly allowed qua grounds no.1 2, whereas present application qua ground no.3 is dismissed. 49. In view of our findings returned on the additional grounds raised by the assessee company in AYs 2004-05 and 2007-08 decided in preceding paras, additional grounds no.1 2 raised in AY 2006-07 by the assessee company being identical in nature are also required to be decided by the AO by examining the plant and machinery viz. the wireline logging unit set up at Duliajan in terms of Notification No.SO 627 (E) dated 04.08.1999 read with second proviso to sub-section (4) of section 80IB and exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not intimated the results of the case to the assessee and that no disciplinary proceedings sought to have been initiated by the assessee against its consultant for professional misconduct and prayed for dismissal of the applications. 52. Keeping in view the facts inter alia that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been pursued by M/s. Samit Grover and Co. and now entire proceedings before the Tribunal are being pursued by M/s. Vaish Associates, Advocates and the applications are supported with affidavits of the Managing Director of the assessee company stating on solemn affirmation that the delay in filing the appeals is entirely attributed to its consultant, M/s. Samit Grover Co.; that in order to impart substantial justice to the parties and to stop multiplicity of the proceedings the issue in controversy must be decided once for all; that exercising a liberal approach by the Bench in order to impart the substantial justice to the assessee, we are of the considered view that delay of 199 days and 303 days in AYs 2006-07 2007-08 respectively is required to be condoned, hence condoned which would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. So, applications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC), Hon ble Calcutta High Court in case of Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT Z(2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) and coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 and also relied on other decisions by filing written submissions which have been made part of the judicial record. 56. Undisputedly, in order to invoke the jurisdiction of section 263 of the Act by the ld. CIT, the assessment orders passed by the AO must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We will discuss both the necessary ingredients require to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act which are discussed one by one hereunder. 57. So far as question of assessment orders being erroneous having been held by the ld. CIT is concerned, in assessee s own case for AYs 1989-90 to 2003-04, the assessee company has been held to be engaged in manufacture or production of an article or thing. This issue has been dealt with by the Bench in detail while returning findings in preceding paras 11 to 15. So, now this issue has since been attained finality as SLP filed by the Revenue before the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
