In view of this circumstance, that the assessing officer chose to treat the income under some other head cannot characterize the particulars or reported in the return as an inaccurate particulars or as suppression of facts.
Whether the provisions of section 40A can be applied, in case the section 40(b) had already been applied – Whether when the partnership deed is complete with regard to all the details regarding remuneration and salary etc, disallowance can be made on the basis that it was excessive – Whether remuneration to partners should be allowed u/s 40(b)(v) only on the basis of declaration made in the partnership deed.
The assessee holds a VSAT license to establish, maintain and operate closed users group, an Internet license to establish, maintain and operate internet services and a license/permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for providing uplinking services.
The Tribunal overlooked the fact that though the property dealer filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer, but owner of the property did not respond to the summons issued by the Assessing Officer. There is no plausible explanation from the assessee why the documents relating to the property were found in his residence if he had nothing to do with it.
Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the assessment order for AY 1998-99 was conclusive on the issue of date of commencement of the assessee’s business for the purpose of determining its tax liability.
In this case, the AO had not only stated that the Tribunal did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court as it was rendered earlier, but has taken liberty of criticizing the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal granted depreciation ‘even though the ITAT was aware that such custom duty was not payable by a subsequent notification by the Govt. of India in 1987.’ He ought not to have done so.
In the instant case, as noticed hereinabove, the assessee’s wife though was in possession of technical qualification but the assessee was required to prove conclusively that his wife Smt. Nanda Chhajta was in fact looking after plans for execution work and was taking administrative decisions.
In our considered opinion, exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act can be claimed by an assessee without applying for registration under Section 12A of the Act as it is not required to fulfil the conditions mentioned under Section 11 of the Act while claiming exemption under Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act.
Undoubtedly an order of assessment which has been passed for a subsequent assessment year may furnish a foundation to reopen an assessment for an earlier assessment year. However, there must be some new facts which come to light in the course of assessment for the subsequent assessment year which emerge in the order of assessment.
The Court took into consideration the definition of ‘interest’ under section 2(28A) of the Act and also analysed the contents of two circulars issued by the CBDT, being No. 65 dated 02.09.1971 and the subsequent one dated 22.03.1993 (Circular No. 647)(sic), and confirmed the reasoning of the Tribunal that discounting charges did not amount to interest and was not subject to tax.
