The issues involved in this appeal are that ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions in respect of gifts claimed to have been received by the assessee for Rs. 1,00,000/- each from Smt. Sushilaben and Smt. Manjulaben. During the assessment year in question the assessee has shown to have received following gifts.
These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the question of law framed in both the appeals is identical and the circumstances are also virtually identical. The question of law that has been framed in these appeals is as under
The assessee is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange and it earns income mainly from share trading and brokerage. During the financial year 1999- 2000, relevant to the assessment year 2000-01, the Chola Freedom Technology Mutual Fund came out with an advertisement stating that tax free dividend income of 40% could be earned if investments
At the outset, it was submitted by the learned AR that the first common ground raised by the assessees in the present appeals relating to exemption u/s 10(10CC) is covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of RBF Rig Corpn. LLC (RBFRC) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 109 ITD 141 wherein it was concluded that payment of taxes by the employer, on behalf of the employee, is a perquisite within the meaning of clause (2) of section 17 of the Income
Section 67 of the Finance Act, providing for levy of service tax on the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided plus/minus the inclusions/exclusions as mentioned in Explanation 1 to this section, satisfy the test for correctness of the measure prescribed by Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International
The Petitioner seeks an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between itself and four transferor companies Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (CEIPL), Cairn Energy India West B.V., (CE India West), Cairn Energy Cambay B.V. (CE Cambay) and Cairn Energy Gujarat B.V. (CE Gujarat).
The petitioner filed his return of income for assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94 together with audit reports under Section 44AB, on 19 November 1993, 23 July 1993 and 30 December 1993. The position as it emerges from the record of this proceeding is that the petitioner had obtained the tax audit reports under Section 44AB before the specified date.
The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The respondent-assessee is a firm which was engaged in business with principal place of business at Kochi and a Branch at Mumbai. The assessee purchased a flat at a cost of Rs. 95,000/ in Mumbai for business purposes in the financial year ending on 31.31974.
The assessee in the present case is an investment company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.10.04 declaring total income of Rs. 5,03,38,480/-. The said return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and in the assessment completed vide an order dated 29.9.2006 passed u/s 143(3), the total income of the assessee was computed by the AO.
The words other right of occupancy appearing in the Explanation 1 of section 32(1) should be construed ejusdem generis with the word lease and if that is so, the right of occupancy should be of such a nature that the assessee should possess an interest in the property and the occupancy must be referable to that interest
