There was neither any other contrary view nor the assessee brought on record any material controverting the findings of the Assessing Officer in this regard. Accordingly, the finding of the Assessing Officer that amount received by the assessee had to be taxed as business profits in terms of the provisions of Article 7 of the DTAA, read with section 44D and section 115A is confirmed and upheld.
The words used in s. 254(2) are ‘shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice’. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decision.
Perusal of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer does not show any application of mind on his part. He simply accepted the claim of the assessee with regard to the issues considered by the CIT. This is a case where the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry.
As provided in the said clause, any advance or loan made by a company to a shareholder or concern in which the shareholder has a substantial interest would not be regarded as a deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) if lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the lending company and the loan or advance is made by the lending company in the ordinary course of its business.
The authorities below have held that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions relating to the minimum engagement of workers and use of new plant and machinery in setting up of industrial undertaking as required in section 80-IB(2).
It is not necessary for the TPO to demonstrate tax avoidance and diversion of tax/ income before invoking the provisions of section 92C and 92CA . To determine the arm’s length nature of any international transactions. Consequently, it is wrong in attaching importance to the fact that the assessee Associated Enterprise (A.E.) is earning losses.
Assessing Officer in the present case, it is difficult to say that the Assessing Officer erroneously assumed jurisdiction to reopen the petitioner’s assessment. The source of the complaint or the tax evasion petition is not relevant; it is the substance of the contents of the tax evasion petition which has to be examined
Since grant of registration is a condition precedent for grant of exemption under section 11 and in this case, there is no registration granted under section 12AA in favour of the assessee, no relief or exemption can be granted to the assessee under section 11.
According to section 271A, if the assessee fails to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by section 44AA and the Rules in any previous year, penalty is leviable. Section 44AA(2)(i) and (ii) provides that every person carrying on business shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as may enable the AO to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s. 33AC on the amount of insurance claim at Rs. 1,29,09,141/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has reduced the repair charges on account of insurance claim receivable during the year
