The only other argument advanced was in respect of the penalty and interest imposed in so far as assessment year 1987-88 is concerned relying on the judgment in the case of Rohitkumar. The returns were filed only after the seizure of the incriminating material. The issue of whether penalty or interest could be levied was in issue in proceedings for adjudication. In the instant case, the levy of penalty or interest including for the Assessment Year 1987-88 has not been challenged and has become final.
When the nature of transaction is such that the arm’s length price can be determined by applying only one of the most appropriate methods and it need not to be determined by applying 2 or more methods, in such a situation even the price determined by applying only one of the most appropriate methods will become the arithmetical mean price.
The omission of the AO to levy interest under section 234B(3) in the first reassessment completed under section 147 which could have been rectified under section 154, does not bar the AO from levying interest under the very same provision, when the assessment was again revised a second time under section 147.
Since the Stock Exchange membership card which is sold in auction is property covered by the description “capital asset” under section 2(14) of the I.T Act, it’s sale by stock Exchange amount to transfer” within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the I.T. Act.
Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had deposited employers’ as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules, but before date of filing return.
Sub section (1) of Section 73 provides that the loss in respect of a speculation business can be set off only against the profits and gains of another speculation business. Sub section (2) of Section 73 enables an assessee to carry forward the loss arising out of a speculation business which has not been set off e their wholly or partly under the provisions of sub section (1)
The applicant is a company incorporated in Russia and also is tax resident of that country. It is one of the leading companies in the field of power project construction and export of electric power and is further engaged in the business of construction and commissioning of power project. In response to the tender floated by the National Thermal Po
It is a well known canon of construction that when Court is called upon to interpret provisions of a social welfare legislation the paramount duty of the Court is to adopt such an interpretation as to further the purposes of law and if possible eschew the one which frustrates it.
Settlement Commission has jurisdiction over assessee only when it decides to proceed with the application and admits application under section 245D(1). In respect of demand raised in the assessment made before the admission of application for settlement under section 245D(1), the Assessing Officer is entitled to levy the interest under section 220(2) till the date of admission under section 245D(1).
We have-considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. So far as facts are concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessees inherited in the co-ownership a Bunglow No.2, Faizabad Road, Opposite to IT College, Lucknow. This was sold by these assessees vide sale deed dated 20.11.2003. Apparent consideration is declared at Rs. 1,20,00,000/ – whereas valuation as per SVA is Rs.2,48,19,410/ -. The assessees objected to the proposal of the
