Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
In keeping with the aforesaid decisions, here also, on facts, it is
held that since the assessee had only sought to claim a higher rate of
depreciation, no revised return of income was required to be filed and
that being so, 'Goetze (India) Ltd.' (supra) is not applicable at all and it
has been wrongly applied by the authorities below.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ramco International Dhogri Road on 8 December, 2008
Then, in
'Ramco International' (supra), it has been held that where, during the
assessment proceedings, the assessee had not made any fresh claim
and had duly furnished the documents and submitted Form No.10CCB
for claim u/s 80IB of the Act, no revised return was required to be filed.
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Hindustan Antibiotics Limited on 29 October, 2018
The
manufacture of such a product without the help quality control
experts is well nigh impossible. No such reports on quality of
the product were either produced before the AO or the ld. CIT(A)
and even before us. As already stated ,in the year under
consideration domestic sale of `34,56,81,771/- and export sale
of `2,76,86,320/- have been made. There is no material before
us in order to ascertain as to whether or not the entire
production of 7626 MT was substandard so as to necessitate
trial production. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan
Antibiotics Ltd., 93 ITR 548,observed that until the company
reaches a stage where it is in a position to decide that a final
product, which could ultimately be sold in the market, could be
manufactured or produced by it, it will be idle formality to say
that it had started manufacture or production of articles simply
because trial products are prepared with a view to verify
whether they can be ultimately used in the preparation or
manufacture of the final products. In the present case, however,
we find that no material whatsoever has been produced by the
assessee before any of the income-tax authorities and even
before us to show that the production made by the assessee in
the year under consideration was merely a trial production and
that the goods produced were not for commercial sale even
when the assessee made sales in domestic market and
international market of more that `37 crores. Even otherwise,
the ld. CIT(A) have not recorded her specific findings as to
when the trial production ended and commercial production
started nor adjudicated each of the grounds of appeal of the
assessee separately and nor even recorded her findings on the
4 ITA Nos.5044 to 5046/Del/2010
ITA No.987/Del/2011
disallowance of expenditure, capitalized in the preceding year .
In view of the foregoing, especially when complete facts and
documents have not been placed before us while the matter
has not be examined by the lower authorities in its proper
perspective, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the
order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the
AO for deciding the issues raised in the ground nos. 1 to 6 in the
appeal afresh, in accordance with law in the light of our
aforesaid observations, after examining all the relevant books or
accounts and records of production, including quality control
reports etc and of course after allowing sufficient opportunity
to the assessee. Needless to say that while redeciding the
issues, the AO shall pass a speaking order, bringing out clearly
as to when the trial production ended and commercial
production started. The assessee is also directed to co-operate
in the assessment and place all the relevant facts within their
specific knowledge and produce all the relevant books of
accounts including production records and quality control
reports before the AO. With these observations, ground nos. 1 to
6 in the appeal are disposed of."
1