The issues involved in this appeal are that ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions in respect of gifts claimed to have been received by the assessee for Rs. 1,00,000/- each from Smt. Sushilaben and Smt. Manjulaben. During the assessment year in question the assessee has shown to have received following gifts.
At the outset, it was submitted by the learned AR that the first common ground raised by the assessees in the present appeals relating to exemption u/s 10(10CC) is covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of RBF Rig Corpn. LLC (RBFRC) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 109 ITD 141 wherein it was concluded that payment of taxes by the employer, on behalf of the employee, is a perquisite within the meaning of clause (2) of section 17 of the Income
The assessee in the present case is an investment company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.10.04 declaring total income of Rs. 5,03,38,480/-. The said return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and in the assessment completed vide an order dated 29.9.2006 passed u/s 143(3), the total income of the assessee was computed by the AO.
The words other right of occupancy appearing in the Explanation 1 of section 32(1) should be construed ejusdem generis with the word lease and if that is so, the right of occupancy should be of such a nature that the assessee should possess an interest in the property and the occupancy must be referable to that interest
During the year, the assessee has shown export sale of polished diamonds and claimed deduction u/s. 80HHC. The assessee also filed an Audit Report in the Form No. 3CEB. The Assessing Officer referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) u/s. 92CA(3).
The facts of the case are that the assessee is a Singapore based company engaged in the business of acquiring television programs, motion pictures and sports events and exhibiting the same on its television channels from Singapore. The assessee is a tax resident of Singapore in terms of Article 4 of the India Singapore Tax Treaty.
It was held that transfer of development rights does amount to transfer of land or building and therefore s. 50C is applicable is applicable because u/s 2(47)(v) the giving of possession in part performance of a contract as pers. 53A of the Transfer of property Act is deemed to be a transfer.
Incomes exempt under the regular provisions of the ITA would be liable to tax under MAT if they are not expressly excluded under the Explanation providing permissible adjustments to be made in computing the book profit.
Merely because the long term capital gain is exempt under section 47(iv) under the normal provision of the Act, it is not correct to say that it is also to be reduced from the net profit for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act when the Explanation to section 115JB does not provide for any deduction in terms of section 47(iv)
The AO held the assessee to be a trader in shares & assessed the gains as business profits on the ground that (a) there was high frequency & sale transactions, (b) there were instances where delivery was not taken and shares were sold within a short period,
