Looking at the issue in any way what is noticed is that the computation made by assessee is in accordance with rule 2 of the Insurance Act, 1938 according to which only Assessing Officer can base his computation. This also corresponds to the way incomes were assessed in earlier years, i.e., the correct method as per rule 2 and section 44.
Learn about a legal ruling on tax assessment for a freight company engaged in regular shipping business. Details on jurisdiction and DTAA implications.
In the case under consideration, the assessee placed before the ld. CIT(A), certain additional evidence and admittedly, the said documents were not submitted before the AO. The powers of the CIT(A) in terms of rule 46A to admit fresh evidence, entail an element of discretion which is required to be exercised in a judicious manner.
Section 41(1) is a deeming fiction and seeks to tax receipts or benefit which may not strictly be ‘income’, the burden to prove that a particular benefit or receipt falls within the four corners of the provisions of section 41(1) lies upon the revenue.
In Divi’s Laboratories Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that commission paid to a non-resident agent for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India and that hence, no disallowance can be made.
The difference between a write off of a debt as irrecoverable and a provision against the same on account of or for it being bad and doubtful for recovery, is not technical but factual and, further, real and not imaginary.This is more so in view of the express provision of law by way of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii), brought on statute by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01-04-1989.
We find that, the AO accepts that the assessee is an infrastructure developer. But we look into the main objection of the AO that being a developer by itself is not enough to avail the deduction, but the assessee should have maintained, operated and handed it back to the government.
As seen from the provisions, the CIT has no jurisdiction over the TPO administratively and therefore, the CIT could not have revised the order under section 92C(3) passed by the TPO.
The computation of benefit of gratuity and leave encashment, as contemplated under section 10(10) and 10(10AA) are to be governed by the definition of ‘salary’ contained in the Explanation to section 10(10) and not by any agreement, to section 10(10) viz., 8th Bipartite Settlement on wage revision and other similar conditions between Indian Banks’ Association and their Workmen.
High Court of Bombay had upheld the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra), on the ground that there was no substantial question of law involved. Even before Hon’ble High Court there was no question raised that all delivery based transactions have always to be treated as investment activity. Thus the decision of the Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High court in case of Gopal Purohit (supra), cannot be considered as a precedent for the proposition that all delivery based shares have to be treated as investment activity.
