It is a fact that assessee has not booked the lease rentals as noted by the AO but on the reason that the assessee being NBFC is following the guidelines issued by RBI and guidelines states that once the party has become a defaulter for at least twelve months that party can be declared as NPA and no income on that part can be booked from the source after failure to get any income.
The assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 54 is devoid of merits as the concept of mutuality has not been extended to the assessee besides the constructed houses or the properties of the respective members cannot be deemed to be purchased or construction of the houses belonging to the society. In view thereof, the claim u/s 54 has been rightly denied by AO and CIT(A).
Rebate under section 88E was to be allowed from the tax computed as per provisions of section 115JB to find out whether after set off of rebate under section 88E, any tax liability remained or not. Admittedly the tax liability as per MAT provisions was Rs.7,56,694/- and rebate admissible under section 88E was Rs.26,98,260/-. Therefore, in any view of the matter, no prejudice was caused to the revenue by non-consideration of provisions of section 115JB by Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. CIT’s order cannot be sustained.
The case of the assessee is that the statement/admission was made under the mistaken belief of law that Rs. 50 lakhs represents the sale value of stock found short was undisclosed income of the assessee instead of the correct legal position that the gross profit on suppressed sale is the income of the assessee.
Ostensibly, while denying the assessee’s claim of carried forward unabsorbed loss/depreciation assessed under the normal provisions of the Act, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the basis that section 10A of the Act provides an exemption and, therefore, loss suffered in such unit is not allowed to be set off or carried forward for further set off against other normal business income.
According to us for charging capital gains, the assets must have been acquired by incurring cost. In the instant case, the assessee has not incurred any cost for the acquisition of asset because the same was allotted to the assessee’s father by Government of India being refugee from Pakistan at relevant point of time.
The fact that the assessee has received the amount in the capacity of beneficiaries has also not been controverted, therefore, the amount received by the trust is in pursuance of dissolution of trust. The amount received in pursuance of dissolution of trust cannot be termed to be an amount received by the beneficiaries “without consideration”. The fact that the trust had borne the tax at maximum marginal rate on its income has also not been controverted. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the addition cannot be upheld on the applicability of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act, as the money received by the assessee is not “without consideration”
It is undisputable fact that though the Assessing Officer had concluded the assessment way back in 1999, the assessment reaches its finality in all respects only when the appellate forum decided the issues on such an assessment. Consequent on the final findings recorded by the appellate authorities, there was no liability to pay tax under section 207 for the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, levy of interest under section 234C for deferment of advance-tax payable by the assessee does not arise when the income of the assessee had finally been arrived at a loss of Rs. 1.6 crores. Interest paid under section 234C is for deferment of advance tax. When advance-tax paid is refunded and also interest paid under section 234B, there is no logic in making the assessee liable for interest under section 234C, namely, for deferment of payment of advance tax. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to refund interest levied under section 234C.
Courts have laid down principles for deciding the question as to when income from sale of shares can be said to be income from business. The following are some of the important decisions in this regard: (a) Whether a transaction of sale and purchase of shares were trading transactions or whether they were in the nature of investments is mixed question of law and fact. Learned CIT(A) v. H. Holck Larsen, [1986] 60 ITR 67.
The assessee has made huge payments on account of weaving and processing charges to various parties including one S. Such an outsourcing of work amounts to work done in pursuance of a contract, even though it may not be written. There has to be some terms and conditions for processing and weaving of the cloths for doing it in a certain manner and also there has to be some kind of understanding for the quality and design.
