(iii) Even in the case of the assessee, the department is accepting the earning of income albeit on a different footing i.e. claiming the same to be salary income in contra distinction to assessee’s claim being business income by virtue of Section 28(va). Though reference is made to colourable devise in the hands of the assessee following Supreme Court judgment in the case of McDowell &. Co. (supra), the same confine
44. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. The assessments in the present case have been made u/s 153A of the Act. Section 13A provides that in case a person against whom search is initiated u/s 132A of the Act then notwithstanding anything contained in sections 39, 147,148,149 151 and 153 of the Income Tax Act, the AO shall issue a notice to such person
8. We have carefully deliberated on the rival contentions raised by the learned AR and DR. The controversy here revolves around chargeability of interest income to the tax which even though technically accrued as per the mercantile-system of accounting being followed by the assessee, but the same was not accounted for as income in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein there was
Where the AO reopened the assessment to rework the book profits u/s 115JA and in an appeal against such order the assessee raised other issues unconnected with the reassessment and the preliminary point arose as to whether in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sun Engineering 198 ITR 297, […]
Where the assessee was an Indian company and more than 51% of its equity share capital was held by a German company (Daimler Benz AG) and pursuant to an offshore merger the said shares came to be held by another German company (DaimlerChrysler AG) and there being a change of more than 51% of the beneficial interest in the shares, the question arose whether section 79 of the Act (pre- amendment)
Everything revolves around clause (iii) of section 32(1). The said clause provides that in case any of the assets specified therein on which depreciation is claimed and allowed under clause (i), is sold, discarded, demolished, and if the monies payable fall short of the w.d.v, such shortfall will be allowed
38. First and foremost rule of construction of interpretation is that in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, the said enactment cannot be construed to have retrospective operation and when amendment relates to a procedural provision results into creating a new disability or obligation and which imposes new duty in respect of transactions already completed,
5. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. In our considered view, the gifts so received by the assessee or his grandsons could not be said to be genuine. The reasons are that in all these cases, the donors are persons of low income group and do not have any capital or asset. There is no evidence on record to show how they build up capital.
When the legislature has categorically defined the purposes like religious and charitable and if the assessee-society is engaged as per their objects in mixed activities, which are partly charitable and partly religious, it cannot be said that section 11(1)(a) does not contemplate such situation.
THE use and spread of software application has been phenomenal in India. So is the case with the tax treatment of receipts resulting from either sale of software or licensing of software programmes. What is treated as royalty by the Revenue is actually reckoned as a plain sale of copyrighted article by the assessee. Thus there is nothing new about this dispute as decided by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the Motorola case
