In the first round of the proceedings under Section 179 of the said Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 5th November, 2007 set aside the order dated 25th January, 2007 of the Income Tax Officer. However whist setting aside the order, the Commissioner of Income Tax directed the Income Tax officer that before any order under Section 179 of the said Act is passed against the petitioner, the Assessing Officer must give a specific finding to the effect that efforts made to recover the tax dues from the said company had failed and that the petitioner should be heard before any order is passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act.
Section 14A states that for the purpose of computing total income under Chapter IV, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. It does not state that income which is entitled to deduction under Chapter VIA has to be excluded for the purpose of the said Section.
. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband, but in joint name with her husband, we agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee herein that unless and until there are materials to show that the assessee is the exclusive owner of the residential property, the harshness of the proviso cannot be applied to the facts herein. Apart from that, 50% ownership is with reference to the clinic situated in the ground floor. As such, the entire property is not an exclusive residential property. Hence, we are inclined to agree with the assessee’s contention that the joint ownership of the property would not stand in the way of claiming exemption under Section 54F.
A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO in the present case shows that there was no rational or intelligible nexus between the reasons recorded by him and the belief entertained about the escapement of income of the assessee company. There was nothing in the said reasons to show existence of any positive income arising to the assessee company which was assessable in his hands and the belief entertained by the AO was based merely on assumption and surmises.
An assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer can be rectified or amended under Section 154 or Section 155 or reopened under Section 148 only by him, and by no other income-tax authority. Similarly, an assessment by way of settlement of a case, which is made by the (Income Tax Settlement Commission) ITSC, can be reopened only by the ITSC and that too only in certain circumstances. Applying this general principle that runs through the Act, an assessment by way of a settlement order passed by the ITSC cannot be reopened by a different authority, viz., the Assessing Officer.
On the issue of expenditure of 66.82 lakhs towards the issue of shares to the Employees Stock Option is concerned, the Tribunal pointed out that the shares were issued to the employees only for the interest of the business of the assessee to induce employees to work in the best interest of the assessee. The allotment of shares was done by the assessee in strict compliance of SEBI regulations, which mandate that the difference between the market prices and the price at which the option is exercised by the employees is to be debited to the Profit and Loss Account as an expenditure. The Tribunal pointed out that what had been adopted was not notional or contingent as had been submitted by the Revenue.
On reading of Section 10 (15A) of the Act it is apparent to us that for this Section, an Indian company engaged in the business of operation of aircrafts should have acquired aircraft(s) on lease under an agreement. It is only when an Indian company acquires aircraft on lease under an agreement, which was entered into on or before the 1st day of April, 2007, benefit under the said Section is available. Thus, the twin conditions; that the agreement should have been entered into on or before 1st April, 2007 and there should be acquisition of aircraft under the lease before the said date, have to be satisfied.
In the present case, what is apparent is that the lessee (assessee) paid a substantial amount (Rs. 2.53 crores) in 1989 at the time of entering into the transaction. It was a precondition for securing possession; the amount was one-time consideration in terms of the lease condition. In addition, the lessee has to pay 2.5% of the said amount as annual rent, which is subject to increase periodically. No doubt, the assessee argues that the annual rent is depressed, and does not reflect the market rent.
Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance made of royalty paid by the respondent to CAMI USA for distribution of software products in India without appreciating that the royalty had been paid on the amount of bad debts even where the software had not worked at all?”
The facts, as disclosed from the record, in a nut-shell are that the original applicant was initially recruited as Supporting Staff Grade-I on 25.7.1979 by the 1st respondent and subsequently promoted as Supporting Staff Grade-II on 4.10.1996. In the meanwhile, he acquired matriculation qualification in the year 1995 while in service.
