In order to determine whether the payment is not sustainable, the Assessing Officer has to first return a finding that the payment made is excessive under section 40A (2). If it is found to be so, then the Assessing Officer has to determine what constitutes the fair market value of the services rendered and disallow the difference between what is claimed and what is such value determined (as fair market value).
Section-132B(4) cannot be construed or interpreted in a manner as to defeat the rights of the assessee/writ petitioner to the property itself. The fact that it limits the liability to the point of time when assessment is completed would mean that authorities have to be alive of this fact and release the amount within reasonable time.
In Hukamchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 870 (Bom.), the roads laid out within factory premises were regarded as part of factory buildings and were entitled to depreciation. In the case of CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd. [1977] 110 ITR 346 (Mad.), the word ‘building’ was held to include roads laid in the proximity of factory for the purpose of providing access to factory and other buildings within compound and they were entitled to depreciation.
Assessing Officer should record in the assessment order his satisfaction that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his return before imposing penalty, we noticed that in the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1982-83 (which is the subject-matter of I.T.T.A. No. 29 of 2000) and for the assessment year 1983-84 (which is the subject matter of I.T.T.A. No. 33 of 2000), no such satisfaction is recorded.
Even in a case where the share broker was found involved in unfair trade practice and was involved in lowering and rising of the share price, and any person, who himself is not involved in that type of transaction, if purchased the share from that broker innocently and bonafidely and if he show his bonafidein transaction by showing relevant material, facts and circumstances and documents,
In the present case, we find that not only is there a change of opinion but also the re-opening is barred by limitation inasmuch as the condition that the escapement of income must have resulted from the failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts, has not been satisfied. The impugned order dated 27.10.2010 merely glosses over the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to limitation.
Our conclusion is based on the fact that the assessee has not established that the termination of the distributorship agreement has resulted in a loss of source of income or has affected its trading contract. This was not even the assessee’s case before the authorities before whom it was contended that the receipt was in the nature of a gift or akin to a gift.
If the revenue was of the opinion that the expenses claimed towards ‘green boxes’ was inadmissible or was excessive, or not genuine, in order to reject the entries in the books of account and other documents of the assessee, seized during the search, it ought to have relied on other materials. Having once drawn the presumption that the contents of the documents (of the assessee) taken into possession during the search were true, the revenue could not have, consistently with that presumption, proceeded to require the assessee to produce materials in support of the expenditure entries.
Amount written off was a loan advanced during the course of business and that the interest thereon had been taxed as business income by the Department in accordance with the assessee’s declaration under VDIS. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the certificate accepting the VDIS declaration was issued by the Commissioner after consultation with the Central Board of Direct Taxes
ourt held that upgradation of computers by changing certain parts, thereby enhancing the configuration of the computers for improving their efficiency, was only a revenue expenditure. The said view was again followed by this Court in CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 15.
