Merely because the issue was not elaborately discussed in the quantum assessment could not be a ground to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 particularly when the details called for by AO were submitted and placed on record.
Merely earning surplus by assessee did not result into the conclusion, that assessee was carrying on its activities, which could be termed as business, trade, or commerce, charging a nominal fee to use coding system and to avail of advantages and benefits therein was neither reflective of business aptitude nor indicative of profit-oriented intent. Accordingly, proviso to section 2(15) did not get attracted, and hence, there was no justification for denying exemption under section 11.
Disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F on the ground of assessee holding one more residential property in joint name along with his wife, could not be sustained as although in purchase deed, name of assessee was also there along with name of wife and purchase consideration of second residential property was paid by her out of joint/her individual bank account however, assessee’s wife was having sufficient own funds in that joint bank account received as her share in sale proceeds of shares.
Where the books of accounts maintained by contractors were not accepted by the Department, the estimation of profit made on the basis of history of Gross Profit rate and Net Profit rate of assessee in the previous years or comparable cases of contractors could be made. Once such profit rates were compared, the additions on account of non confirmation or non production of the sub contractors, etc. was totally irrelevant and could not be made.
Since assessee-contractor carried out work for laying down road in a thermal power plant, therefore, there was no question of not incurring of expenditure by assessee to carry on road work contracts but the disallowance of whole expenditure towards sub contract work by AO for want of proper bills was not justified instead disallowance of 10% of expenses made by appellate authorities was justified.
Carewell Security Services Private Limited Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Conclusion: Employer could not camouflage basic wage as part of allowance so as to avoid deduction and contribution under the EPF Act. Held: Assessee was company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and was engaged in the business of […]
As regards to issue of allowability capital loss incurred by assessee on assigning of debts due from certain debtors, it was concluded that merely because assignee company did not disclose business income in their income tax returns for subsequent years in year of recovery of debts, that would not prejudice right of assessee company to claim capital loss in the year of extinguishment of their right in favour of assignee company. Hence, events that had happened after the date of assignment of debt, could not be used to judge the transaction, which had happened on the date of assignment.
Since assessee did not receive any sum over and above the value of its investments from partnership firm on revaluation of assets, therefore, there could not be any levy of capital gains or any levy in the nature of income upon retirement of assessee from firm within the meaning of Section 2(24) in the hands of assessee.
Price Waterhouse & Co. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since the addition on basis for which AO reopened assessment had already been disclosed by assessee in the return of income filed by him u/s 139(1), AO having not carried out the scrutiny assessment within the prescribed statutory limit, could not be given another innings for […]
Loan amount which was never claimed by assessee as expenditure, waiver of same could not amount to cessation of trading liability and was not chargeable to tax under section 41(1).
