During the course of survey on 05.11.2004, the assessee had agreed to the addition of Rs. 14.06 lakhs on a/c of difference in stock and Rs.0.49 lakhs as difference in cash in hand (total Rs. 15.34000) This addition has accordingly been made in the net profit subject to non-initiation of penalty and prosecution proceedings as stipulated in me statement recorded during survey.
PICK-UP and drop transport facility provided by employers is not a perquisite and hence not liable to tax, according to a recent ruling by a tax tribunal. In a decision that has implications for the sectors such as BPO and IT, the Mumbai Income-Tax Apellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that companies providing such a facility were not liable to deduct tax on the expenditure incurred on it.
The entire focus in the present appeal is to decide whether the returns filed by the assessee were valid or invalid or defective. Whereas the AO, on observing that the return was not properly verified in as much as it was not signed by the right person, declared it to be invalid and non-est. He further intimated the assessee vide para 5 of his communication dated 11.1.2000 that the act of wrong verification is not a rectifiable defect u/s 139(9) which provides that removal of any defect of a valid return of income.
The assessee, an employee of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) India, received from J&J, USA, on 12.7.1989 a “cashless” option to buy 2500 shares at the then prevailing market price of $ 57.88 per share. The options were exercisable in installments over 10 years starting 11.7.1991. On 13.8.1992 (AY 1993-94), the assessee ‘sold’ the options and made a gain of Rs. 5,44,925
what needs to be done by an assessing authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in examining the claim of an assessee that the payment made by such assessee was a deductible expenditure under $.37 of the Income-tax Act although called a penalty is to see whether the law or scheme under which the amount was paid required such payment to be made as penalty or as something akin to penalty,
In a nut-shell, it is held that the instance case is one of rendering multi-farious services for production of films by foreign companies in India and handing over the negatives to them in India. This does not involve export or transfer outside India by any means of any film software by the assessee.
Regarding the addition made u/s 41(1), we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly invoked this provision. There is neither any remission nor cessation of the liability. The Assessing Officer has simply added all the credits appearing in the balance sheet which could not be hit by Section 41(1).
We have the rival submissions and perused the records. During the year under consideration the assessee society had claimed as exempt a sum or Rs. 10.00 Lakhs received on account of damages for wrongful proceedings against the society taken up before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society. Mr. Manojkumar Goswami & Mrs. Shashi Goswami
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view , the reasons advanced by the learned CIT for refusing to grant continuation of recognition u/s 80G(5) are superfluous and do not stand to legal scrutiny within the meaning of section 80G(5).
So far as addition u/s 40A(3) is concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessee has purchased raw hides/skins for the purposes of manufacturing leather and leather products from local producers either directly or through their agents. Even though the Assessing Officer issued letters to various producers and some of these have come back unserved but it does not prove that the producers of the skin from whom assessee had made purchases are non-existent.
