The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a concern which is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 10A of the Act and therefore, all of its income is exempt from tax in India and hence there is no intention to shift its profit outside India and more so, when the tax rates in USA, where the AEs are located, is higher than in India.
ITAT held that that if interest income does not result at all, there cannot be any tax and that if an income has not materialized, then merely an entry made about a hypothetical income by following book keeping methods, the liability to tax cannot be attracted.
Plain language of sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearly restricts the application of sub-section (1) of Section 150 to enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which have not already become final on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149(2) of the Act.
By section 254(4) of the IT Act, an order which has been passed by the Tribunal reaches finality the moment the same is passed: it cannot be touched thereafter. By section 254(2) of the act, the Tribunal, however, has been authorized to rectify mistakes in its orders, which are apparent on the face of the records.
In the present case, the assessee has failed to carry out his obligations and hence, the burden cannot be shifted to the revenue to find out from the creditors about their identity and credit worthiness after receiving the names and addresses of the creditors.
Foreign exchange fluctuation loss cannot be called notional loss since the fall in the exchange rate has already taken place in the accounting year. Accounting Standards-11 provides that the entire amount of liabilities outstanding as at the balance sheet date should be restated and the loss should be charged to the Profit and Loss account of each year.
In a big relied to Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Yogpeeth, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed exemption status under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
Whole issue in the present appeal by Revenue, is about the source, nature and genuineness of the transaction to determine whether the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act is sustainable.
Invocation of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act to deny claim of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, grounds of appeal are allowed
Challenging the order,dated 02/01/2013,of the CIT(A)-20,Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.The assessee has filed cross objections. Assessee-company is an international airline engaged in the business of passenger and cargo transportation.
