The assessee was exclusively engaged in blending and packing of tea for export and was not manufacturing or producing any other article or thing. It was recognised as a 100% EOU division and the Department had no case that the assessee’s unit engaged in export of tea bags and tea packets was not a 100% EOU. If exemption was denied on the ground that products exported were not produced or manufactured in the industrial unit of the assessee’s 100% EOU, it would defeat the very object of s. 10B of the Act. When the products for which the assessee’s unit is recognized as a 100% EOU are tea bags, tea in packets and tea in bulk packs and the assessee is exclusively engaged in blending and packing of tea for export may not be manufacturer or producer of any other article or thing in common parlance. However, for purposes of s. 10A, 10AA & 10B, the definition of the word “manufacture” as defined in s. 2(r) of SEZ Act, Exim Policy, Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, etc have to be considered. The definition of ‘manufacture’ as per s. 2(r) of SEZ Act, 2005 is incorporated in s. 10AA of the I. T. Act w.e.f. 10.02.2006. This amendment is clarificatory in nature. The definition of ‘manufacture’ under the SEZ Act etc is much wider than what is the meaning of the term ‘manufacture’ under the Income-tax Act

The AO’s objection that a non-compete right is not an “intangible asset” u/s. 32(1)(ii) on the ground that (a) it is not “any other business or commercial right of a similar nature” and (b) it is not capable of transfer like other intangible assets is not acceptable because (i) the right of absence of competition or the ‘non-compete right’ is an asset which is capable of being transferred and is of a similar nature as the other items referred to. This is shown by the fact that the right was transferred by the assessee at the time of its amalgamation and (ii) the expenditure resulted in the acquisition of an unrivaled and non-competed business territory for 10 years which brought advantages in the capital field. Though in Srivatsan Surveyors 125 TTJ 286 (Chennai), it was held that a restrictive covenant is a “right in persona” and not a “right in rem”, a contrary view was taken in ITO vs. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd 30 SOT 506 (Chennai). When two views are possible, the view favourable to the assessee should be followed held in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC).

It is very sad that the AO without following the principles of natural justice and inspite of clear findings of the ITAT in the order dated 18.06.2010 has repeated the same orders as was done originally way back in 1998. Inspite of levying cost of Rs. 5000 on AO there is no change in the attitude of the Revenue with reference to the assessee. By taking up the assessment at the fag end of the time barring period and by denying natural justice and not considering the evidence on record, the assessee was forced to file appeals before the ITAT unnecessarily by incurring heavy cost of not only appeal fees but also engaging Counsels to defend the case. There should be an end to this sorry state of affairs

Though the allotment of the shares was not done as of 31.3.2006, the number of shares to be allotted to the employees as on 31.3.2006 was specified and immediately thereafter the said shares were so allotted. Consequently, the mere non-allotment of the shares pending completion of certain formalities does not merit the disallowance of said expenditure as being a contingent liability. The fact that the scheme provided for a lock in period of five years under which in case the employee left employment before the expiry of five years, the shares so allotted to him would revert to the assessee, did not make the liability contingent because where the shares were forfeited, the value thereof would be offered to tax in that year (S.S.I. Ltd. vs. DCIT 85 TTJ 1049 (Chennai) followed; Ranbaxy Laboratories 124 TTJ 771 (Del) & VIP Industries (ITAT Mum) distinguished)

Despite the insertion of sub-section (1B) to s. 271, the necessity for “prima facie satisfaction” for initiation of penalty proceedings continues to be a jurisdictional fact. The AO has to record the finding that there was concealment of income. In the s. 143(3) assessment order, the AO has not mentioned a word that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. He made the addition merely on the ground that the assessee was not able to produce any evidence for writing off of the amount in the books of account. As the satisfaction that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income is not discernible from the assessment order, the penalty order suffers from lack of jurisdiction to impose penalty (Madhu Shree Gupta 317 ITR 107 (Del) followed)