In the decision of Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corp. of India v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 139. Section 44 was considered and so was the First Schedule to the said Act and particularly rule 5(a) thereof. The Supreme Court observed that section 44 is a special provision governing computation of taxable income earned from the business of insurance.
In the judgment in Mela Ram & Sons’ case (supra) relied on by the Revenue, an appeal was dismissed without condoning delay and the question was considered whether such an order is an order in the appeal. In this judgment, after referring to the conflicting judgments of various High Courts and the previous judgment of the Apex Court, the Apex Court finally concluded thus:
In Cargo Linkers (supra), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was not the ‘person responsible’ for making payment in terms of section 194C of the said Act. In that case, the Tribunal had also noted and found as a matter of fact that the assessee was nothing but an intermediary between the exporters and the airlines as it booked cargo for and on behalf of the exporters and mainly facilitated the contract for carrying goods.
In the present case, therefore, the assessee failed to offer any explanation in not offering a particular amount to tax. This was finding of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Even if the speculation profit was eligible for set off against carry forward speculation loss, the same would have effect of diminishing such speculation loss which would be carry forwarded for future years. It is by now well settled through statutory provisions as well as decisions of the Apex Court in case of loss return also, the penalty could be imposed if by virtue of wrong claim not made bona fide, computation of loss is likely to reduce.
Court in Writ Petition No.866 of 2010 filed by the assessee, held by order dated 29th April 2010 that the ruling of Authority for Advance Ruling in the respondent-assessec’s case would not be over-ruled by subsequent decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of another assessee.
In so far as Societies are concerned, only such of those Societies which are registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 are exempted. In other words, the terms of the notification itself show that a society like the petitioner which is registered under the Travancore-Kochi Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 are not exempted from the levy of TDS.
It has been recognized by the Supreme Court itself in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500, that even where proceedings under section 147 are sought to be taken with reference to an intimation framed earlier under section 143(1), the ingredients of section 147 have to be fulfilled;
We find from the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the argument of the assessee that if the addition is confirmed, if any trading result should be allowed to be set off against unaccounted income of Rs. 1,90,000/- introduced in garb of guess deposits. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition of Rs. 75,916/-. Therefore, telescoping effect of this addition was allowed.
As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee, in the decision Radhe Developers’s case (supra), the Gujarat High Court considered the question on ownership as a condition for grant of deduction under Section 80IB(10) in depth and accepted the case of an assessee similarly placed.
It is clear, Section 85 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority can prefer an appeal within three months. Thereafter, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal, the Commissioner can allow the appeal to be preferred within further period of three months and not beyond that.
