From such exchange of information between the Assessing Officer and the assessee, we need to gather whether the question of taxability of a receipt of Rs. 5,56,000/- from the members by the petitioner was under consideration by the Assessing Officer.
In the case of ITO v. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 486 (Ahd) it has been held that provisions of Sec.50C are applicable only for computation of capital gains in real estate transaction in respect of seller only and not for the purchaser.
It is not necessary for the assessee to show that any legitimate expenditure incurred by him was also incurred out of necessity. It is also not necessary for the assessee to show that any expenditure incurred by him for the purpose of business carried on by him has actually resulted in profit or income either in the same year or in any of the subsequent years.
The assessee in this case has used multiple year data in computing the arm’s length price. The TPO, the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have held that, such action by the assessee is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus it tantamounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Just because an AIR report was generated indicating the PAN No. of assessee, the onus does not shift completely to assessee. It is the responsibility of AO to examine complete details before asking for reconciliation and whether the transactions were indeed undertaken or not. The AIR report also does not contain any authentication but since it is generated by the Department, credit was given by AO and DRP about its authenticity.
There has to be a sanctity to the order of Court otherwise the Court orders would be meaningless. An order of the Court may be set aside by a higher Court. A Court of coordinate jurisdiction should ordinarily not recall the order of another learned Judge unless and until there was an ex facie apparent error on the face of the record. Moreover, if it was to be done, it should be done by the same Judge if he was available.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide General Circular No. 36/2012 dated 6th November 2012, clarified some of the issues relating to e-form Nos 23C and 23D with respect to death of existing cost auditor, resignation or change of cost auditor and additional fee thereof etc. It clarifies the following issues:
Mr. A. Shankar, learned counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this appeal at this point of time pointing out that the revenue that is involved is not more than Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore, in terms of board Circular No. 2/05, dated 24.10.2005 the appeal should not be entertained.
