According to us for charging capital gains, the assets must have been acquired by incurring cost. In the instant case, the assessee has not incurred any cost for the acquisition of asset because the same was allotted to the assessee’s father by Government of India being refugee from Pakistan at relevant point of time.
Verification Certificate under provisions of Rules 114(4) of IT Rules, 1962 of PAN (Individual / HUF) – A format has been prescribed for verification certificate under provisions of Rules 114(4) of IT Rules, 1962. An individual / HUF PAN Applicant who files certificate of MP / MLA / MC / Gazetted officer as proof of his / her identity or address is to file the same in prescribed format only.
A Notification vide No. G.S.R. 716(E). dated 23.09.2011 was issued, in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dtd. 21.04.2011 in the matter of M/s. S.E. Investment Limited Vs Union Of India and Others {W.P. (c) 2393/2010 and CM Appl. 4794/2011}, the Hon’ble Court had inter alia held that there is no provision in Delhi Stamp Act for payment of stamp duty on Increased authorized share capital.
The fact that the assessee has received the amount in the capacity of beneficiaries has also not been controverted, therefore, the amount received by the trust is in pursuance of dissolution of trust. The amount received in pursuance of dissolution of trust cannot be termed to be an amount received by the beneficiaries “without consideration”. The fact that the trust had borne the tax at maximum marginal rate on its income has also not been controverted. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the addition cannot be upheld on the applicability of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act, as the money received by the assessee is not “without consideration”
It is undisputable fact that though the Assessing Officer had concluded the assessment way back in 1999, the assessment reaches its finality in all respects only when the appellate forum decided the issues on such an assessment. Consequent on the final findings recorded by the appellate authorities, there was no liability to pay tax under section 207 for the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, levy of interest under section 234C for deferment of advance-tax payable by the assessee does not arise when the income of the assessee had finally been arrived at a loss of Rs. 1.6 crores. Interest paid under section 234C is for deferment of advance tax. When advance-tax paid is refunded and also interest paid under section 234B, there is no logic in making the assessee liable for interest under section 234C, namely, for deferment of payment of advance tax. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to refund interest levied under section 234C.
The Tribunal while examining this issue went purely by the facts of the case and held that the difficulties in non-production of the documents as was required under the statute was on account of shifting of branch of the bank shortly before the date of the survey and afterwards within a period of two weeks they were furnished before the Assessing Officer. Since, these documents at the time of survey were not presented, it was inferred that they were collected subsequently in post survey period.
The Assessing Officer had asked the respondent-assessee, as to why Rs. 1,63,37,365/- should not be taxed under Section 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability payable to sundry creditors. The assessee on the same date Was asked to furnish details with regard to the change in address and to furnish the proof of payment made to Makkar Traders in the following years and to explain the current status.
Courts have laid down principles for deciding the question as to when income from sale of shares can be said to be income from business. The following are some of the important decisions in this regard: (a) Whether a transaction of sale and purchase of shares were trading transactions or whether they were in the nature of investments is mixed question of law and fact. Learned CIT(A) v. H. Holck Larsen, [1986] 60 ITR 67.
The assessee has made huge payments on account of weaving and processing charges to various parties including one S. Such an outsourcing of work amounts to work done in pursuance of a contract, even though it may not be written. There has to be some terms and conditions for processing and weaving of the cloths for doing it in a certain manner and also there has to be some kind of understanding for the quality and design.
In the above ruling, fees paid to a resident of Canada as consideration for analysis of samples and ores conducted from technical lab was held as fees for technical services u/s.9(1)(vii) and Article 12 of the India-Canada Treaty. No arguments were made on the aspect of ‘make available’ requirement present in the definition of ‘fees for technical services’ under Article 12 of the Treaty and the AAR also did not consider this. Thus, the decision relied on by the learned Departmental Representative is distinguishable.
