In the present case, the records reveal that the assessee was specifically queried regarding the nature and character of the one-time regulatory fee paid by it as well as the bank and stamp duty charges. A detailed explanation in the form of statements and other documents required of by the Assessing Officer were produced at the stage of original assessment.
Letting out of the plant, machinery or furniture and the premises constituted a single, composite and inseparable letting is based on the tests laid down by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. (supra).
A reading of the provision of section 37(3A) to (3D) indicates that where the expenditure or as the case may be, the aggregate expenditure incurred by an assessee on any one or more of the following; i.e. (i) advertisement, publicity, sales promotion (ii) running and maintenance of air craft and motor cars and (iii) payments made to hotels exceeds Rs. 1 lakh 20 per cent of such excess shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’.
In view of this circumstance, that the assessing officer chose to treat the income under some other head cannot characterize the particulars or reported in the return as an inaccurate particulars or as suppression of facts.
Whether the provisions of section 40A can be applied, in case the section 40(b) had already been applied – Whether when the partnership deed is complete with regard to all the details regarding remuneration and salary etc, disallowance can be made on the basis that it was excessive – Whether remuneration to partners should be allowed u/s 40(b)(v) only on the basis of declaration made in the partnership deed.
The assessee holds a VSAT license to establish, maintain and operate closed users group, an Internet license to establish, maintain and operate internet services and a license/permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for providing uplinking services.
The Tribunal overlooked the fact that though the property dealer filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer, but owner of the property did not respond to the summons issued by the Assessing Officer. There is no plausible explanation from the assessee why the documents relating to the property were found in his residence if he had nothing to do with it.
Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the assessment order for AY 1998-99 was conclusive on the issue of date of commencement of the assessee’s business for the purpose of determining its tax liability.
In this case, the AO had not only stated that the Tribunal did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court as it was rendered earlier, but has taken liberty of criticizing the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal granted depreciation ‘even though the ITAT was aware that such custom duty was not payable by a subsequent notification by the Govt. of India in 1987.’ He ought not to have done so.
In the instant case, as noticed hereinabove, the assessee’s wife though was in possession of technical qualification but the assessee was required to prove conclusively that his wife Smt. Nanda Chhajta was in fact looking after plans for execution work and was taking administrative decisions.
