In the present case, this Court notices that the Assessing Officer went into great lengths to verify the genuineness of these transactions. He issued summons to the share applicants- only 9 could be served; none actually responded through their authorized or principal officer. Even during remand, 16 of the 18 share applicants could not be served.
Whether the view taken by this Court in case of Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod (HUF) (supra) that the instructions of 2011 of the Board providing for revised monetary limits for filing the appeals to the Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court, would apply to all pending cases irrespective of the date of filing of such appeals is correct, particularly, in view of express language used in paragraph 2 of the instructions which provides for revised monetary limits for filing of the appeals and paragraph 11 thereof which provides inter-alia that such instructions will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011?
Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs. 60,19,000/- made by the Assessing officer was wrongly deleted by the Tribunal. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT v. SAS Educational Society [2009] 319 ITR 65 (Punj. & Har.), it was submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously accepted the plea of the assessee whereas in view of the express provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, any amount paid in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- was inadmissible.
It is difficult to appreciate the petitioner’s objection that the information received from DAO-45, New Delhi, acting under Article 26 of the Indo-Japanese treaty for the Avoidance of Double Taxation, cannot constitute valid material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer can form even a tentative or prima facie belief that income to the extent of Rs. 11,28,644/- had escaped assessment.
There is a fundamental fallacy in invoking the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act to the application of section 69B of the Income Tax Act, notwithstanding that both the Acts are cognate and have even been said to constitute an integrated scheme of taxation. Under the Income Tax Act, we are to find what was the real and actual consideration paid by the assessee and whether the full consideration has been recorded in the books.
Under Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, to give to the amalgamated company the benefit of the loss or, as the case may be, allowance for depreciation of the amalgamating company for the previous year in which the amalgamation was effected for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, the Central Government must, upon the recommendation of the specified authority, be satisfied that the amalgamating company was not, immediately before the amalgamation, financially viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors, and that the amalgamation was in the public interest.
Where a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, then unless relief granted for the first assessment year in which the claim was made and accepted is withdrawn or set aside, the Income Tax officer cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent years. More particularly so, when the revenue has not even suggested that there was any change in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years.
AAI had let out/given on licence or lease certain premises to the petitioners therein for the purpose of running a counter or for parking and the Service Tax Department, invoking Section 65 (105) (zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 was claiming service tax on the rental/licence fee which was being paid by the petitioners therein to the AAI. It was the contention of the petitioners therein that Section 65 (105) (zzm) does not entail renting out of immovable property and the same does not constitute a taxable service and is not exigible to service tax. Reliance was placed on clarification issued by Central Board of Custom and Excise vide Circular No.80/10/2004-S.T., dated 17.9.2004.
CIT Vs. Surya Educational & Charitable Trust (P&H HC) – Section 10(23C) of the Act are the provisions of the Act in substitution of the earlier provisions of Section 10(22) of the Act as to which income shall not be included in computing the total income of any person. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 11, 12 or Section 10(23C) of the Act, deal with the income of a Trust or of the Institution and the circumstances as to when such income is to be excluded for computing the total income, but the basis of such benefit is the registration under Section 12AA of the Act.
There can be no dispute with the proposition that the word ‘attributable’ is much wider in scope than ‘derived’. The Legislature has used the words ‘attributable to’ in conjunction with the phrase ‘anyone or more of such activities’. The investment of the funds by the banks including the non-reserves was part of the banking activities since no bank would like its reserve funds to remain idle and not earn any interest.
