Thus, the concept of Mutuality postulates that all the contributors to the common fund must be entitled to participate in the surplus and that all the participators in the surplus are contributors to the common fund. It is in this sense that the law postulates that there must be a complete identity between the contributors and the participators.
Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the assessee is not required to explain source of source of the fund gets buttressed by the amendment made in section 68 with effect from 01.04.2013, which empowers the AO to examine source of source in case of share application money from 01.04.2013 and no other cases prior to that.
Respondents should not have appropriated the refund they received from the Income- Tax Department. There is nothing wrong in claiming the refund. The problem is in utilising the refund received.
However, the relevant certificate from the competent authority has not been submitted by the assessee as required under law for determination of the distance of land in question from Municipality etc.
It is an admitted position that the assessee treated the amount of subsidy as a capital receipt, but, did not reduce it from the value of fixed assets and eventually claimed depreciation on the higher value of assets without reduction of such subsidy. To deal with such a situation, the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 1-4-2016, […]
Assessee is regularly in the business of purchase-sale of equity shares, share transactions entered during the year were in large number, funds were borrowed for the purpose of trading, no separate account has been maintained for the investment portfolio and all the transactions of purchase sale raised are only for one scrip namely Suraj Stainless Steel Ltd.
There is sufficient indication from the notes on files that the invocation of the revisionary powers under Section 74A of the DVAT Act was to delay making the refund which was overdue for over six years. The Court is left no manner of doubt is that this was plainly an abuse of power vested in the Commissioner which calls for disapproval in strongest terms.
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court, in CIT v. Jaya Prakash Industries Pvt Ltd, held that the difference on foreign currency translation which is notional debit/credit, did not represent any loss or income for the purpose of computing the taxable income under the Income- Tax Act.
When the assessee has been alleging that he was only extending facility to his client for delivery of lignite and coal, he has not acted as an agent between client and truck owners. Therefore, in our opinion, merely on assumption basis, the assessee should not be burdened with tax liability.
Interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act
