This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for their deliberate and willful non-compliance and violation of order dated 14.11.2011,
The reasoning of the Tribunal is premised upon the fact that capital assets were transferred on a particular date the assessee passed on the execution of the agreement. There is no material on the record or in the agreement suggesting that even if the entire consideration or part is not paid the title to the shares will revert to the seller. In that sense the controlling expression of ‘transfer’ in the instant case is conclusive as to the true nature of the transaction.
The company-in-liquidation admittedly does not own the property. The Court cannot force respondent either to sell or let it out to ‘W’. Interim arrangement was made at the stage of admission of appeal considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience. Such interim arrangement could not be made permanent. Court cannot create tenancy without the consent of the landlord. In short, tenancy is a contract between landlord and tenant.
In the present case, if the Assessing Officer had returned a finding that the premises were to be valued at market value (of the rental), in case it increased as a result of the renovations, the only prescribed mode was to apply the method indicated by Rule 3 (a) (iii) of the Valuation Rules. The AO could not have included the entire expenses, and spread it over a period of five years, for the purpose of saying that the whole of such expense constituted a perquisite.
The question that arises for consideration in instant case is, whether the payment made by the assessee of Rs. 1.74 crore against the total amount of Rs. 3.61 crore, which included the interest of Rs. 1.83 crore under Section 220(2) and 234-B, was paid as tax or interest.
The Tribunal could not have rejected the cross objections without entering into factual matrix and being satisfied itself that the appellant had not in fact filed cross objections at the time when it could have originally filed them when the appeals had been filed before the Tribunal. This is also evident from a reading of this Court’s order.
ection 10A, as it presently stands, though worded as deduction provision, is essentially and in substance an exemption provision. We have also held that the implication of an exemption provision is that the particular income which is exempt from tax does not enter the field of taxation and is not subject to any computation.
The main contention of the Income Tax Department is that the Scheme is floated with the sole object to avoid tax liability. Except the Income Tax Department no objections were raised by anyone against sanctioning the Scheme.
According to Explanation 10 and proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43, the subsidy amount shall be deducted in the actual cost of the asset of the assessee. Thus, the contention of the assessee that the subsidy received towards the power generation plant would not be reduced from the actual cost of the assets was not correct.
In the present case, we notice that in two out of four reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, he stated that he need to verify the claims. In the second ground, he had recorded that admissibility of the bad debts written off required to be verified. In the fourth ground also, he had recorded that admissibility of royalty claim was required to be verified.
