Provisions of s. 124(3) are self- explanatory. No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Undisputedly, assessee did not raise this issue either after the expiry of one month from the date
This is assesses’s appeal for the assessment year 2000-01 against the Id. CIT(A)’s order dated 27.1.2006 confirming the AO’s action in holding that the assessee had a business connection in India u/s 9 of the Income Tax Act and that M/s. BBC Worldwide (lndia)
The assessee has filed these appeals challenging the respective orders of Learned CIT (A)-VI Mumbai for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. As the issue as well as facts are identical hence both these appeals are disposed off by this common order.
The assessee has been carrying out this activity in an organized manner with the help of heavy machinery and computer. Its activity is not as simply as mixing of sand, cement etc. by a labourer on the right side.
Under sec.68, when an amount is found to be credited in the books of the assessee, he has to prove the identity of creditor, his creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. No doubt, the source of income is there with the creditors but it does not conclusively prove that the amount has come from that source.
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has called into question correctness of order dated 7th February 2006, passed by the learned CIT (A) for the assessment year 2000-091, holding that the assessee is liable to pay tax on short term capital gains on sale of shares.
In this year, the assessee filed its return of income on 05.12.1997 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued notice on 11.01.2002 u/s. 148 of the Act by initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act.
The assessee paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC after the grace period but before the due date for filing the return. The AO disallowed the payment u/s 36(1) (va) and held that s. 43B had no application. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal, HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:
whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non- eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking). The SB held that the amount eligible for tax holiday was specific to each undertaking of the Taxpayer
S. 10 (38) inserted w.e.f. 1.10.2004 provides that long-term capital gains (LTCG) on which security transaction tax (STT) is paid shall not be included in total income. The assessee earned long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 33,01,57,200 on sale of shares after 1.10.2004 in respect of which STT was paid. The LTCG was exempt u/s 10 (38).
