9. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that a similar issue was involved in assessee’s own case for the earlier years i.e. AY 1991-92, 92-93 & 93-94 and the Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 12.6.1998 has decided the same in favour of the assessee for the said years following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of P.A.V.L. Kulandayan Chettiar
Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Assessing Officer finds that the amount expended on making such investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded
3. We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. We find that evidence exists on record that M/s Ronex International was habitually importing materials from Kaks. It is also a fact that this concern placed an order with the assessee for import of brass and plastic zippers as seen from pages 35 and 36 of the paper book. The Kaks was earlier carrying on the business of export of zippers,
10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The authorities below have not controverted the claim of the assessee company that the amount received from above three companies is inter-corporate deposits. The Assessing Officer held against the assessee only on account that it had failed to explain, the investment is neither loan or advance.
5.6 In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee company has realized service tax on account of providing services and facilities in connection with the exploration or extraction of minerals oils in India. The service tax so realized is a part of receipts received by the assessee from ONGC. The service tax realized by the assessee is in respect of services specified under section 44BB and rendered by it to ONGC
11. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties, material on record and orders of the authorities below. It is noted that the assessee is an individual and aged about 50 years. The assessee has income from salary and other sources both aggregating to Rs. 2.62 lakhs. It is also noted that the assessee was received salary from M/s Nav Bharat Education Society where he is working as a senior clerk
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
