undisputedly, the assessing officer has not initiated proceedings under S.14S of the Act, to lax the interest income of Rs.25,83,848 earned on margin money. In fact, the assessing officer has initiated the proceedings under S.148 to bring to tax the reimbursement of income-tax from APTRANSCO. However, during the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessing officer also noticed that the assessee has earned interest income of Rs.25,83,848 on margin money kept by it for providing bank guarantee in favour of APTRANSCO, in respect of which it has claimed deduction from the total interest income received during the year under consideration.
What is to be assessed is the income which the Assessing Officer has believed to have escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the reassessment proceedings. One has to see that the issue of notice under section 148 should be on the basis of belief of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
section 80IA of the Act was restructured into two new distinct sections namely, 80IA and 80IB. The amended provisions extended the benefits to certain sectors. Under section 80IA of the Act profits of approved housing projects where development and construction commenced after 1-10-1998 and completed before 31-3-2001 were fully deductible.
An assessee to whom the agreement applies has the option of being subjected to tax as per DTAA or the Income-tax Act 1961, which is more beneficial to it. When section 44D is read in juxtaposition to section 115A, it mandates for putting the amount of royalty and fees for technical services to tax at 20% as against 10% as provided by Article 12 of DTAA. The assessee being a person to whom the agreement applies, has rightly subjected itself to taxation at the reduced rate of 10% as per DTAA.
In the present case, admittedly, no incriminating material was found relating to the alleged unaccounted sales of jewellery by the assessee to M/s. Ranka Jewelers in the course of search carried out at the premises of the assessee. The material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was found during the search at the premises of the third party namely Prakash Salunkhe. Therefore, the question of existence of such nexus as mentioned in the preceeding paragraph simply does not arise. Consequently, no addition could be made solely on the basis of material found from the position of the third party.
Merely because other clubs follow the very same accounting policy, it cannot be said to be beyond scrutiny or verification as to the correctness and completeness of the accounting practice followed, and there is any deficiency in such accounting practice or policy, it can very well be tinkered with howsoever universally followed such policy is; there is no proposition in law to force the revenue to accept the accounting system
n this decision, vide order dated 15.9.2008, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that even a decision of Apex Court or Jurisdictional High Court rendered subsequent to the Tribunal decision can render the said Tribunal decision liable of rectification of mistake apparent from record. In view of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal by the Revenue on account of tax effect, when on similar facts Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dismissed the Revenue’s case on tax effect.
9. Section 153A would be applicable where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of accounts or other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31st May, 2003. Therefore, before invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act it would be necessary to comply with the provisions contained under section 132(1) of the Act. Salient feature of section 132(1)
Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee treated the difference between the said liabilities and assets as a capital reserve and the question arose whether such difference was assessable to tax
R. B. K. Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) -Even prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006, dealings in Futures & Options and other derivatives products cannot be treated as speculative transactions as they are special kind of transactions, not involving purchase and sale of shares and consequently the loss arising therefrom cannot be treated as a speculation loss.
