In the absence of a finding rejecting the accounts of the assessee, the reference to the DVO could not have been made by the Assessing Officer in the first place. It is evident that the valuation in the instant case was uncritically accepted by the Assessing Officer. As can be seen from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee, with that of the DVO, the variation is 3.86 per cent. This is a very minor variation, having regard to the large amounts involved.
It is important to bear in mind uncontroverted claim of the assessee that there were sufficient reserves and surplus, which were eligible for distribution as ‘dividend’, and the NIPL had sufficient cash balances as well. The nature of amounts distributed as dividend has not been altered as a result of, what the revenue authorities describe as, colourable device to evade taxes.
The deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iv)(c) is allowed for a period of ten years. The dispute in the present appeal is as to whether assessment year 2005-06 should be the first year in which the deduction should be allowed. It was clarified at the time of hearing of the appeal that from the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee has been getting the deduction under section 80-IA(4).
The economic problems of milk producers are such that the Parliament/CBDT felt it necessary to incorporate that milk producer should be free to receive payments in cash. Of course, such exclusion from the rigour of the provisions of section 40A(3), is subjected to certain conditions.
There may be cases where the Assessing Officer does not and may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/ original proceedings may have examined the subject matter, claim etc, because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious. To hold that the assessing officer in the first round did not examine the question or subject matter and form an opinion, would be contrary and opposed to normal human conduct. Such cases have to be examined individually.
Market regulator Sebi today imposed a penalty of Rs 6 lakh on Dilip S Mehta, owner of a chartered accountancy firm, for failing to respond to summons issued by it in relation to a probe into the affairs of erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan. The matter pertains to alleged irregularities committed by former promoters of Bank of Rajasthan (BoR).
Non-receipt of quarterly reports as per the CBDT Instruction No. 7 of 2011 The CCIT/CIT shall ensure due adherence to this instruction. In order to facilitate monitoring, a register shall be maintained in the office of CIT as per Annexure-IV to this Instruction.
Interest expenses directly attributable to tax exempt income as also directly attributable to taxable income, are required to be excluded from computation of common interest expenses to be allocated under rule 8D(2)(ii).
Section 32 of the Act indeed entitles an assessee, who is the owner of a property, to depreciation. As we have already held, the arrangement between the lessor and the assessee was, in effect, an agreement of sale of the property by the lessor to the assessee. The assessee is, therefore, the owner of the property having acquired the same on 29th March, 1982, itself and, in any event, by 30th March, 1982.
