CIT v. G.R. Developers Insofar as balconies are concerned, prior to 01.04.2005, the area covered by them has to be excluded in calculating the built-up area. As the housing project was approved on 14.06.2002 and in the said plan, all these balconies are shown and excluding those balconies, the construction put up is admittedly less than 1,500 sq. ft. After 01.04.2005, the authorities cannot add the balcony area to the built up area and deny the benefit to the assessee. Therefore, as the material on record discloses that all the 84 or 83 flats constructed are less than the 1,500 sq. ft., the assessee cannot be denied the benefit and taxed on the ground that it exceeds 1,500 sq. ft. Hence this question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Keeping in mind the fact that obstacles were put in assessees getting the benefit, the Legislature introduced the definition of built-up area in sub-section (14)(a) of section 80-IB. From a reading of the definition of built-up area, the intention is clear. In calculating the built-up area it is only the inner measurements of the residential unit on the floor level, which has to be taken into consideration. If there are any projections and balconies and if it exclusively belongs to the residential units, then that also has to be taken into consideration for deciding the built-up area.
Eastron Overseas Inc., Mataji Enterprises & M/s. Celestial Enterprises by bill of entries dated 12.12.2011, 14.12.2011 and 7.12.2011 had asked the Commissioner of Customs at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi to permit and allow import into India of the Data Graphic Display Tubes, which have been imported from Malaysia. It was claimed that these goods could be imported under the open general license.
The acquisition is of the year 2001 while the compensation has been paid somewhere in the year 2009. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [1996] 89 Taxman 119, it is to be held that interest received on delayed payment is a revenue receipt exigible to Income-tax. Since the amount has already been deposited by the respondent-authority and the deduction is in accordance with section 194A, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Court below in upholding the action taken by respondent-authority in deducting the amount.
In the first three minutes, reward has been awarded @ 19.4% that is nearly the maximum possible rate. The said reward was on the principal amount of customs duty of Rs.1.21 crores and, therefore, the Reward Committee was competent to award a lower amount/percentage on the penalty and fine amount but this is not the reason and ground given in the last two minutes of the Reward Committee.
Prakash Leasing Ltd. v. DCIT – The lease rentals is not the real income of the assessee. The lease rental consists of financing charge as well as capital recovery. The amount received towards capital recovery constitute the capital expenditure, whereas the financing charge represents the revenue receipt, which is the real income. It is as per the Accounting Standards prescribed by the ICAI. Therefore, the assessee under the Act has to offer to tax only the real income and not the total receipt. He is not liable to pay any tax under the Act on the capital recovery.
Merely because the vehicles were used by the lessees in their business, the assessee cannot be denied the depreciation @ 40%. In fact, it is not in dispute that in respect of all these vehicles, the assessee has acknowledged the receipt of lease rent and has shown the same in his profit and loss account. It is thereafter he is claiming depreciation. If the authorities were of the view that the assessee has failed to prove his ownership over those vehicles, then, if depreciation is to be disallowed then they also should not have taken that lease rental agreement for the purpose of making the assessment. Under these circumstances, it is also not in dispute that for the subsequent years, the assessee had been granted the benefit of depreciation. Therefore, the order to be passed by the authorities should be consistent.
In the case on hand it is to be noticed that it is a case of income escaping the assessment. It may not be a tax of avoidance but it would be a case of a return, which is filed with all the material escaping the attention of the Assessing Authority.
A.K. Balaji Vs. GOI (Madras High Court)- This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action against respondents or any other Foreign Law Firm or Foreign Lawyers, who are illegally practising the Profession of Law in India, and for a further direction to forbear them from having any legal practice either on the litigation side or in the field of non-litigation and commercial transactions, in any manner whatsoever within the territory of India.
Having regard to the dates on which the sites were acquired the long term capital gains and short term capital gains were arrived at . The assessee has paid the money by way of account payee cheque to one B.G. to clear the slum dwellers, which amount has been acknowledged by him. Expenses related only to short term capital gains. According to the assessee, the slum dwellers were in possession of the land, which resulted in short-term capital gains.
