Whether assessment related to pre-liquidation period cannot be done ex-parte during the period of liquidation without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to ex-management?
The test to decide, as to whether the income is revenue in nature or capital receipt, is that if the funds borrowed are just surplus and by virtue of that circumstances they are invested in fixed deposits the income earned in the form of interest will be taxable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ [as per ratios of SC decision in 227 ITR 172].
Though in these case the appeal in quantum was decided in favour of the assessee and thereby penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, there are also cases where the appeal in quantum was decided by Tribunal against the assessee and the appeal was pending before High Court for disposal but High Court had admitted the appeal, even in that case, it was decided by Delhi Tribunal that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied being debatable issue
Protective assessment made by the Assessing Officer in the present case cannot be sustained because substantive addition has been made in the hands of IBN-18 Broadcast and therefore, if any addition is made in the present case, it will amount to double addition.
The assessee has filed its return of income on 31-12-2006 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee had claimed deduction at Rs. 1,91,400/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the income tax act. The Point of issue was the assessee has carried out the construction in violation of the original plan passed by AUDA and therefore violated the condition of section 80IB(10).
To make any disallowance under section 40A(3), it is a precondition that the assessee must have claimed deduction, directly or indirectly, for which payment is made in cash exceeding the specified limit.
Whether expenditure paid in cash, which is not disallowed u/s 37 (1), can be disallowed under section 40A(3). Whether provision of section 54F are applicable where nature of property turned into commercial purpose.
The assessee firm is a builder and developer and is assessed in the status of AOP. During the year under consideration, the assessee was developing a residential project which involved construction of 182 flats. The assessee did not disclose any income out of these projects on the plea that it was following ‘project completion method’ and offered income on these in AY 2010-11
ITAT had given a finding that the services provided to AE, Singapore cannot be equated with the kind of services provided to AE, Germany. Thus by following the order passed by the Tribunal in the hands of the assessee for AY 2006-07, we uphold the order of ld. DRP on this issue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by department is dismissed.
On facts, the Tribunal had clearly stated that the assessee had been in fact supplied the verbatim copy of the reasons, reproducing the same at paragraph 2 (page 2) of its order. The tribunal’s findings appear at paragraph 2.8 of the impugned order.
