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.
There is no material evidence on record to show that the assessee had produced any reconciliation statement of interest and contractual receipts as per TDS certificate compared to turnover credited in the P & L Account as per the audited statement. In view of the provisions of Section 237 of the Income Tax Act and averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, it cannot be said that there is any laches on the part of opp. parties-Department in not granting refund to the petitioner as claimed in its return.
The business of the company which is principally in the area of manufacturing and marketing of plastic pouches cannot justify the sponsoring of the trainee for overseas education in computer software development and accounting. Even for accounting purpose of the company no employee is required to be sent abroad;
If assessee couldn’t prove his claim, consequent order couldn’t be disputed on ground of natural justice – The issue which falls for decision is primarily whether the assessment proceeding in the instant case was conducted in a fair manner so much so conforming to principles of natural justice. It is settled law that principles of natural justice cannot be construed in isolation from the factual matrix of the case or it has many a facets.
The TDR premium is liable to be paid by a member of the society who desires to utilize additional FSI in the form of transferable development rights. The principle of mutuality would clearly apply to instant case. In the context of the payment of non-occupancy charges by a member of a co-operative housing society to the society, a Division Bench of this Court held in Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 414, that the principle of mutuality would apply.
So far the question of benefit under s. 10B of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has submitted that the view as taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained for the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2010] 186 Taxman 439 (SC) holding, inter alia, that step-wise activity of cutting marble blocks and converting into the polished slabs and tiles constituted manufacture or production in terms of s. 80-IA of the Act while distinguishing the decision in Aman Marble’s case (supra), and while observing, inter alia, held as under:
As per the Development Agreement entered into between the parties, the assessee and his brothers have demolished the existing residential building and handed over the vacant space to an extent of 16800 sq ft. to the Developer for construction of the apartment. Since the residential building has already been demolished by the assessee and his brothers themselves, they are not entitled to claim benefit under section 54 of the Act.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that an appellate remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the third respondent, on 27.3.2012, under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Chief Commissioner has relied on the Government of India resolution providing for fee structure, 1997 and the Government of Orissa Industries Department Resolution dated 17.09.1998 to come to a conclusion that the fees collected towards “placement and training” is in excess of what was prescribed by the said resolutions. Petitioner’s case is that the resolution relied upon by the Chief Commissioner no more holds the field in view of the Act, 2007 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.06.2007
There is no distinction in principle between a slot charter and a voyage charter of a part of a ship. They are both in a sense charterers of a space in a ship. The phrase “operation of ships” in Article 9 must be understood in the context of the phrase “the business of operation of ships” in s. 44B. As income from slot hire agreements falls within s. 44B it must be held to be within the ambit of Article 9(1).
