Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court modified the order of the ITAT and, instead of order under Section 263 having been quashed by the ITAT, set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT for passing the fresh order under Section 263. However, the fact remains that at present the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT dated 31.12.2009 does not survive because it has been set aside by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT for passing a fresh order.
Major source of income credited by the assessee company in the profit and loss account is Other Income of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rent of Rs. 1,49,000/-. The assessee had not carried out any business activity in the current year nor the assessee has produced any evidences in support of its argument that it has actively pursuing its business activity. The profit and loss account reveals that the assessee credited Rs. 4,49,000/- as above and claimed expenditure of Rs. 5,24,298/- being administrative exp and depreciation.
Directions issued by the Customs Department, the payment of customs duty has been made though the same has been shown as advance or a note has been appended in the accounts for contingent liability. Therefore, in our view the Assessee has made the payment of customs duty only when the liability has accrued on it. Since the customs duty has been paid to acquire the plant and machinery and therefore, it has to be capitalised,
Reading of the judgment dated 07.7.2011 rendered in the earlier writ petition, it becomes clear that the petitioner had challenged the vires of Section 205A and 205C on the ground that these provisions were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also argued that these provisions could not be given retrospective effect. The petitioner had also submitted that huge corpus had accumulated in IEPF as unclaimed amount. All these contentions were taken note of and specifically rejected.
These two stay applications are connected and issues are similar. These stay applications are preferred by assessees on the issue whether the long term capital gains and short term capital gains offered should be treated as business income or profession.
There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned CIT (A). It is observed that learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without considering the merits of the issues raised in the appeal filed by the assessee.
The return of income in the present case was filed at a loss of Rs.19,03,733/-. The only addition made to that loss is regarding depreciation claimed on computers which is granted by the Assessing Officer @15% as against the claim of the assessee of 60% and excess depreciation claimed by the assessee has been computed at Rs.66,15,933/-. Learned CIT (A) has granted relief to the assessee by way of an ex parte order on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vide order dated 31st August, 2010 in ITA No.1266/2010.
NSE byelaws, rules and regulations would have statutory force. These statutory byelaws were brought into effect with the approval of the Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) under Section 9 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. The said bye-laws would prevail over the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bhopal has convicted Shri S.K.Soni, the then Income Tax Officer, Bhopal U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act and sentenced him to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.35 lakh in disproportionate assets case. A case was registered on 13/09/1999 against Shri S.K.Soni, the then Income Tax Officer, Bhopal U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 on the allegations that he had amassed huge wealth to the tune of Rs.6,25,000/- disproportionate to his known sources of income.
