In short the department’s argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly adjudicated the matter and hence the issue should be set aside cannot be accepted as Assessing Officer at the time of the assessment was of the view that the facts are same and when the issue travelled to the Commissioner (Appeals) without explaining the basis of coming to certain conclusions, made general observations.
The undisputed fact in the present case remained that the tax on the entire income received by the assessee was required to be deducted at appropriate rates by the respective payers u/s 195(2) of the Act. Had the payer made the deduction of tax at the appropriate rate, the net tax payable by the assessee would have been Nil. Thus there was no liability to pay advance tax by the assessee.
It is clear from the provisions of Sec. 45(1) , being a deeming provision any gain which has arisen during the year has to be taken for consideration irrespective of the fact that the transferor may receive the sale consideration in subsequent years. Further, the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that in family members cases, for the capital gains arising out of the transfer of shares, the return of income have been accepted by the department under scrutiny assessment, cannot be accepted under the principles of consistency as we are not bound to follow the decisions of the authorities which are inconsistent with the provisions of section 45(1) of the Act.
Even if the contract was considered to be a turnkey contract, entire contract revenue could not be taxed in India but only so much of the profit as was attributable to the PE India was liable to Indian taxation.
Tribunal in the case of Ganjam Treading Co. Ltd. (supra) has already considered this situation and held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCL Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra) the disallowance of interest in relation to the dividend received from trading shares cannot be made. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A computed by the A.O. in relation to the stock-in-trade. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is accordingly upheld.
The appellant had shown sale value as a result of transfer at Rs. 14,00,000/- whereas stamp authority has taken this value at Rs. 13,83,600/- it means that assessee had shown more sale consideration in sale deed. Thus, this case cannot be referred u/s 50C (2) of the IT Act to the DVO. The capital gain can be calculated under chapter – IV of computation of income from capital gain. Section 48 empowered to AO to calculate the capital gain. For calculation of capital gain full value of the transaction received or accruing as a result of the transfer
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during course of the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has received three residential flats at Hill Park from its sister concern M/s. British India Steam Navigation Co. (BISNCL) which was capitalized in the schedule of fixed assets at Rs. 79,03,460/-.
Admittedly, assessee has produced a register, which contained payments to various labourers. Admittedly, this register does not contain the addresses of the labourers nor it contains revenue stamp, nor is it signed by the Labour Department, no PF has also been deducted. Does all these wrongs in its entirety or individuality make the expenses incurred by the assessee deniable? Can this defect be held to be changing the mode of payment of the assessee from one mode to another? Here we would answer ‘no’.
Apprehension of the assessees that they have been made liable to pay a portion of tax u/s 179 of the Act, is unwarranted and misconceived. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, no person can be made liable to pay any tax for himself or on behalf of any other entity for which he has been associated unless a specific order is passed in the matter. In the present case, no such order u/s 179 of the Act has been passed.
The Ld DR argued that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the exemption u/s 10B of the Act as the assessee had not filed prescribed audit report and had got software developed from outside. He further argued that assessee had not filed certified copies of invoices.
