6. Having heard both the parties and having considered their rival contentions, we find that the only dispute before us is as to whether deduction u/s.10B is to be allowed prior to the set off of the depreciation allowance and whether the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years would form part of the current year’s depreciation. It is not in dispute that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.10B of the Income tax Act
24. The first question arises in these appeals is whether the assessee is bound to account for the profits on the sale of flats in respect of which possession was handed over by the assessee to the buyer, and the amount of consideration was also realized and was also paid directly to the bank. In this case, the ultimate registration of the sale document in favour of the buyer is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the construction of a particular flat is completed and the possession was actually handed over by the assessee to the buyer.
5.6 There cannot be a straight jacket formula for detection of these defaults of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and indeed concealment of particulars of income and in accurate particulars of income may at times overlap. It depends upon the facts of the each case. In the assessment proceedings the ITO while ascertaining the total income chargeable to tax would be in a position
(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,
