After passing of order by Settlement Commission, no power vests in Assessing Authority or any other authority to issue notice in r/o period and income covered under order of Settlement Commission.
Unfortunately, for the appellant NBFCs. are not covered by Section 36(l)(viia) of the I.T Act and so much so, explanation to section 36(l)(vii) squarely applies or in other words, the appellant-N. B.F.Cs. are not entitled to deduction of any Provision created for bad and doubtful debts, no matter such provision
It shows that these assessees had really intended to comply with the notices and therefore it should not be inferred that there was a default which could invite penalty u/s 271(l)(b). The ITAT Delhi Bench-G in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (2008) 115 TTJ (Delhi) 419
We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Copies of Registration Certificate under Kerala Value Added Tax and Form ST-2 under Service Tax Act placed at pages 20 and 21 clearly mentions that assessee has been registered as a works contractor doing construction of residential complex
The next two items are penal charges of Rs.5,11,688/ – and Rs. 10,970/-. These amounts have already been held to be business income while discussing the issues of section 80IB. Accordingly, we direct the AO to treat these two amounts as part of business income for computation under section 80HHC.
The assets did not fall under any of the above exceptional three conditions. The said block of assets was used for the purpose of business during the year. Under the circumstances the assets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration ,
We have heard both the sides in detail. Thrust given by the C1T(A) on the mens rea reflected in the conduct of the assessee does not survive with usual force, since the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., 306 1TR 277.
In this view of the matter, we hold that the payment of royalty made by the assessee is out side the purview of section 40(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, no TDS is required to be made from such royalty payment. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
In Y. Venugopala Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2003) 263 ITR 30, the Karnataka High Court interpreted the words ‘notwithstanding’ used in Section 88 of KVSS and has held that a matter which has already been settled cannot be reopened under the scheme and the benefit under the scheme should not be extended to an assessee even with regard to the admitted income.
The Section indicates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of the High Court no further appeal shall lie notwithstanding the above three situations mentioned.
