Apex Court held that till the amendment in 1995, the compensation received on surrendering the tenancy rights could not be assessed to capital gains. Thus, on the fact position as found by the Tribunal and which form the very basis of the order under Section 263 that the assessee was treated as tenants as per the document dated 25.02.1994, the genuineness of which was never questioned by the Revenue, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, we reject the questions raised by the Revenue.
No doubt, payment of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory but it is for the Assessing Authority while passing the original assessment order or while passing the reassessment or rectification order to direct payment of interest.
Power to rectify an order, under Section 254 (2) is extremely limited. It does not extend to correcting errors of law, or re-appreciating factual findings. Those, properly fall within appellate review of an order of court of first instance. What legitimately falls for consideration are errors (mistakes) apparent from the record.
In the instant case, the search took place in the year 2002 and, therefore, the instant case is governed by Chapter XIV-B. Section 158BB of Chapter XIV-B deals with computation of undisclosed income of the block period.
The assessee herein sought for withdrawal of the appeal to go before the Settlement Commission, which dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no appeal pending, a mandatory requirement as on the date of taking up a required application.
In view of judgment in R.J Wood. The Court held that receipts towards mesne profits should be taxed in the year of their receipt. The revenue had not however, re-opened the assessment in respect of the year of receipt of the amounts, in this case.
The case of the revenue is that section 234D as introduced on 1st June, 2003 was retrospective in operation by necessary implication. However, as doubts were raised about its retrospectivity, the same was clarified by adding an explanation to section 234D by Finance Act, 2012.
The issue arising in this case stand covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra).The decision of this court in the matter of Solid Containers (supra) is on completely different facts and inapplicable to this case. In the matter of Solid Containers (supra) the assessee therein had taken a loan for business purpose.
The petitioner is a share broker. A survey was conducted under Section 133-A of the Act on 24.4.2001 in which a large number of incriminating documents were found. The AO proceeded to make enquiries in which it was found that there were serious defects in the books of accounts. Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal-the Director had created large number of fictitious concerns, which were not doing any business. In the circumstances the AO completed the assessment on protective basis.
Question no.1 pertains to the business connection of the appellant in India and Question Nos. ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘d’ relate to Permanent Establishment viz. whether ANR as its agent could be treated as Permanent Establishment. It was submitted by Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant/review petitioner that in para 35 of the judgment, his submission is recorded that the issue of Arm’s Length Price be decided first and in case it is held that the payment of commission to ANR was an Arm’s Length Price, the question of business connection or PE would be rendered academic
