9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the position in the assessment year under consideration. Respectfully, following the decision of the Tribunal in own case we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of AO to decide the issue afresh in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in the preceding assessment year i.e.A.Y.2008-2009. Thus, the grounds No.1 to 3, consisting of one issue, are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s.40A(3) - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the A.Y.2009-2010 in [ 2015 (5) TMI 1212 - ITAT CUTTACK] wherein the Tribunal has already been decided in favour of the assessee - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Deptt. Before the Hon'ble High Court. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing disallowance u/s 40A(3) on estimate @ 10% only of payment made to transporters after holding that such payments were hit by provision of that section. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in course of the appeal proceeding. 3. The brief facts which has been brought on record and have been considered the by the authorities below on the submissions of the assessee are that the assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring total income at Rs.Nil after claiming exemption u/s. 10B of the Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aged in manufacturing any article or thing and the assessee was engaged only in the business process of removing impurities from lower grade chrome ores through and beneficiation process which did not bring out any new article or thing with a different chemical composition. Therefore, ld. DR submitted that no exemption u/s.10B of the Act can be allowed to the assessee. Further, it was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing exemption u/s 10B of the Act to the assessee relying on the ITAT's decision in the case of another assessee Biswajit Das, when the decision in that case has been challenged by the Deptt. before the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, ld. CIT DR submitted that the appeal of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are inclined to hold that the definition of manufacturing has been dealt with by the appellate authorities in as many pages insofar as the activities sought to be carried out by the assessee in as many ways was held against the assessee. We are to consider the case of the assessee to establish that the manufacturing has actually taken place and it is not an undisputed fact that what has been manufactured is the nature's bounty which has been extracted in a concentrated manner in order to fetch a better price. It is normal for any trader to display and sale the same nature's bounty but charge higher price for a product which looks/appears better and also not because the lab analysis has to be done prior to purchase. He will know tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord insofar as judicial decisions are for and against the assessee and it will be a endeavor of the Assessing Officer to consider the intention of the assessee to export mineral which is abundantly available in the particular area insofar as an effort in manufacturing the same whether could entitle it to claim deduction u/s.10B is to be reconsidered. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue afresh in the light of what has been mentioned above. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. From the above observations of the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal has restored ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansport expenses amounting to ₹ 13,66,151/- to meet the end of justice without appreciating that the books of account was duly audited u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act,1961 and no adverse was finding on cash payment exceeding ₹ 20,000/- was reported in the Form-3CD as annexure to the audit report in Form-3CB. 11. In ground No.1, the assessee has supported the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the exemption u/s.10B of the Act to the assessee. We have already restored this issue to the file of AO for reconsideration of the same. Thus, this ground of cross objection of the assessee has become infructuous. 12. With regard to ground No.4 raised by the Revenue in its appeal and grounds No.2 3 raised by the assessee in its cross o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
