If tax exempted income was earned without interference of any employee but rather through solicitation and advertisement of bank the question of attributing any expenditure cannot arise at all.
This Reference under Section 256(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) seeks our opinion on two substantial questions of law as framed by it. However, Mr. Rattesar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant assessee very fairly states that he is not in a possession of evidence to show that the Reference has been served upon the Revenue.
Section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants has made the instant Reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 in respect of the respondent being indicted for a misconduct other than such misconduct which is referred to in sub-Section (4) of Section 21.
Requirement of Section 153C of the Act cannot be ignored at the alter of suspicion. The Revenue has to strictly comply with Section 153C of the Act. We are of the view that non satisfaction of the condition precedent viz. the seized document must belong to the respondent – assessee is a jurisdictional issue and non satisfaction thereof would make the entire proceedings taken thereunder null and void.
The petitioner, the wife of an assessee in default, is before this Court aggrieved by Exhibits P9, P10 and P12 by which the Income-tax authorities proceeded against her property comprised in Survey Number 354/17/8, Re-survey number 681/9; which also adjoins the property in which the petitioner runs a hotel.
Undoubtedly, the present case raises the issue of balancing the interest of the Revenue, and the interest of an Needless to say, the Revenue does have the right to realise the assessed incometax amount from the assessee. However, while trying to realise the said amount, the Revenue cannot be permitted, and has not been permitted by the Circulars mentioned above, to act like a Shylock.
Initially we had observed that the Commissioner and his officials are playing a blame game. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the revisional order passed at Ext.P5. The petitioner challenges the assessment made of the building constructed by the petitioner, under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (Act for short).
This Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) was required to answer the question whether for the purpose of computing total world income of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, the income accruing in Uganda has to be reduced by the tax paid to the Uganda Government in respect of such income? The Court while answering the question in the negative observed that it is not aware of any commercial principle / practice which lays down that the tax paid by one on one’s income is allowed as a deduction in determining the income for the purposes of taxation.
