Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
As regards the second proposed question, the facts are that the respondent! assessee had purchased the land in question sometime in 1994-96. Since then, the respondent! assessee had shown the said land in its balance sheet as a fixed asset. The same had been consistently shown as such by the respondent! assessee in all the years including the assessment year 2006-07.
CIT in the present case had also initiated the proceedings under s. 263 of the Act on the basis of the audit objections. Show-cause notice was issued in the present case for non-deduction of tax at source, out of certain expenses incurred by the assessee and order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the Act directing the AO to redetermine the income of the assessee by applying a rate other than the rate applied by the AO, being without jurisdiction, is not tenable in law. We find no merit in the plea of the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue that the source of information in the present case was audit objection, but there was independent application of mind by the CIT.
In our humble understanding, the provisions of Section 14A are indeed attracted whether or not the shares are held as stock in trade or as investments, even though the provisions of rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) cannot be invoked in such a case, and even though the provisions of rule 8 D(2)(i) are much narrower in scope than the scope of Section 14 A simplictor.
