9. From the rival positions of both the parties as well as the provisions of section 41(1) and the legal propositions of various judicial fora, the following issues have emerged. They are: (a) the issue of limitation of period of three years; (b) the issue of discharge of onus, when the assessee has not unilaterally written them off; (c) the issue of unilateral write off for the assessments of the post amendment period i.e. 1.4.1997
In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We therefore, delete the penalty.
In respect of AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed by a revised return that the loss suffered in respect of one s. 10A unit was not liable to be set-off against the profits of another s. 10A unit. The AO rejected the claim and the assessee accepted the decision of the AO. On the question whether the assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, especially in the light
. There is no dispute or dis-agreement regarding the nature of transactions entered into between the assessee and its distributors. The assessee company, by virtue of the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, is engaged in providing Mobile telephone services to the public at large. The Govt, of India s allotting the licence to various parties in the field on the basis of geographical specifications.
25. There is no dispute or dis-agreement regarding the nature of transactions entered into between the assessee and its distributors. The assessee company, by virtue of the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, is engaged in providing Mobile telephone services to the public at large. The Govt, of India s allotting the licence
In Dharmendra Textile Processors’ case (supra), Their Lordships have held that that penalty under section 271(1)(c) provides remedy for loss of revenue. A penalty under section 271 (1)(c) involves payment of an additional amount, which is a civil liability to provide for remedy for loss of revenue, while a sentence of imprisonment under section 276 C means loss of individual liberty which does not help revenue in anyway except as serving as a deterrent for the potential defaulters.
It is an admitted fact that the donor had agricultural land in question in her possession and she had been showing agriculture income also from the land. She has been staying with her husband who is a well known architect. For her livelihood, she was not depending on the agriculture land gifted but only on her husband. As long she was not living alone and independent, capacity of her family cannot be ignored.
2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. This appeal is directed against the order passed under section 263 of the Act. The assessee is a company. For the relevant assessment year in the balance sheet of the assessee a provision for gratuity was reflected at Rs.7,85,600/ -. The assessee claimed this as deduction in the return of income
The scheme of levying Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) on zero-tax companies was introduced by the Finance Act 1996 w. e f. 01.04.1997. A new section 115JAA was also inserted to provide for a tax-credit scheme by which the MAT paid can be carried forward for set-off against regular tax payable during the subsequent years, subject to certain conditions The sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 115JAA read as under.
9. The plain reading of the above clause (iv) of 35(1) reveals that the deduction shall be admissible u/s 35(2) when any expenditure is capital in nature; Such capital expenditure is incurred on the scientific research; that scientific research must be related to the business; and that business must have been carried on by the assessee. Further, said clause presumes that there exist two distinct activities
