In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1964) 53 ITR 261, It was held that the compensation received for loss of an asset of enduring value would be regarded as capital receipt.
By virtue of Rule 22A of Part I KSR, which rules have been formulated by the State Government in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is obligatory on the part of any State Government employee to have applied for and obtained coverage in respect of life, by subscribing to a Policy, in the official branch of the State Life Insurance and shall continue to subscribe the same till he ceased from the ‘service’. The said provision itself makes it clear that there is a reciprocal statutory duty upon the State Insurance Department, to provide Policy to such State Government employees and this statutory obligation cannot be stated as a ‘taxable service’ provided to any individual or establishment or class of such persons.
Going by the admitted facts herein, as noticed in the assessment order that the assessee was also subjected to search on 19.1.1996 and the case of the assessee falling under Section 158BC, the relevant provision for limitation would be only as per Section 158BE(1)(a). That being the case, the file noting has no significance for the purpose of working out the limitation. Thus, on the search conducted on 19.1.1996 the notice of assessment was issued on 20.9.1996.
The retrospective clarificatory amendments (vide the Finance Act, 2012) do not seek to override the DTAA. In case of a conflict between the domestic law and the DTAA, DTAA will prevail, in terms of Section 90 of the Act.
Statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is evidence but its reliability depends upon the facts of the case and particularly surrounding circumstances. Drawing inference from the facts is a question of law. Here in this case, all the authorities below have merely reached to the conclusion of one conclusion merely on the basis of assumption resulting into fastening of the liability upon the assessee.
On facts, it is seen that by Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner was informed that there are certain points to be clarified in connection with the returns filed by them. Accordingly, they were required to attend the office of the assessing officer with documents, accounts and other evidence to support the return filed.
The acknowledgement and/or acceptance of the admitted amount, received by the petitioner towards the full and final settlement concludes the issue for the purpose of winding up petition. Therefore, having once settled the matter, the averment and/or allegations given of coercion and or undue influence just cannot be gone into the Company Petition.
In the present case, we find that the so-called information is undisclosed and what exactly that information was, is also not known. At one place in the affidavit of Deputy Director of Income-tax, it has been mentioned that he got information that there was a likelihood of the documents belonging to the DS Group being found at the residence of the petitioner. That by itself would amount only to a surmise and conjecture and not to solid information and since the search on the premises of the petitioner was founded on this so-called information, the search would have to be held to be arbitrary. It may also be pointed out that when the search was conducted on 21.01.2011, no documents belonging to the DS Group were, in fact, found at the premises of the petitioner.
In case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62, the Supreme Court in the context of an assessee making provision for estimated expenditure towards warranty observed that provision is a liability which can be measured only by using substantial degree of estimation. Such provision is recognized when an assessee had a present obligation as a result of past events, and it is possible that any outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and further a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation.
In the present case, no irregularity or inaccuracy or falsity in the figures furnished by the appellant both on 05.02.2007 and in the rebate claims has been alleged. Moreover, it appears to us somewhat strange that none of the authorities below has demonstrated as to how the appellant could have complied with the requirement prior to the date of the export of the IT-enabled services.
