No doubt the provisions of section 153 requires that assessment order shall not be passed after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. This is applicable to this case. There is no requirement that service must be effected before the expiry date but there must be evidences to show that assessment order was indeed passed before the limitation.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. We have also gone through the Tax Audit Report in Form No.3CD placed at Pages 20 to 49 of the Paper Book. Annexure-XIV of the Tax Audit report gives the details of tax deductible under various sections of the Act. Page 1 of Annexure-XIV gives the details of payments on which tax has not been deducted at all.
It is true that the assessee on the one hand gets the waiver of monies payable on purchase of machinery and claims such receipt as not taxable because it is capital receipt. On the other hand the assessee claims depreciation on the value of the machinery for which it did not incur any cost.
It is not in dispute that on the date of maturity, i.e., 22.11.2006, the certificates of gold were redeemed, therefore, 22.11.2006 should be considered as the date of acquisition of the gold for the purpose of computation of capital gains. The authorities below were, therefore, not justified in rejecting the claim of assessee for short term capital gains on redemption of bonds.
It has been held that when any expenditure is incurred by an assessee on leasehold premises, even though it may give an enduring benefit, it would not amount to capital expenditure as no capital asset is being created in favour of the assessee. In some of the cases, the expenditure is on civil and electrical works also.
Unless the foreign remittances are credited in the account of assessee or at least credited in the account of the bank, it can not be said that the export proceeds have been received in or brought into India. The assessee has placed on record a certificate from State Bank of India which only states that the proceeds of the foreign remittances had been credited to the account of the assessee.
The Proviso to s. 10A(1A) provides that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to an assessee who does not furnish a return of his income on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1). The assessee’s argument that the said Proviso is merely directory and not mandatory is not acceptable.
It appears that there is a difference between the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act and those of Section 23(4) thereof. However, it is not so. As per Section 23(1)(c), if any part of the property was let out and was vacant during the year or any part thereof, and due to such vacancy, the annual rent received or receivable was less than the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the lesser of the two amounts, i.e., t
A very heavy onus is placed on the assessee to explain the difference between the assessed income and returned income and the assessee in the instant case did not discharge the said onus. In the light of the discussion made above and conduct of the assessee, it is thus clear that all the material facts and particulars relating to the assessee’s computation of income were never disclosed by the assessee,
There is no dispute on the fact of delay of 1529 days as well as on non-furnishing of any affidavit by the Counsels affirming that assessee had a conference with the Counsels which give raise to the necessity of filing the impugned cross objections. Further, there is no explanation as to why and under what circumstances, the assessee approached the Counsels on 26-12-2008 only and not within 30 days from the receipt of the notice.
