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
14. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the addition in dispute on account of alleged unexplained investment made by the assessee in the property was made by the AO on the basis of valuation report obtained from the DVO by making a reference u/s 142A, the provisions of which read as under:-
11 If we go to the facts of the case the business loss returned by the assessee to the extent it could not be set off was in fact carried forward and while computing the gross total income the income under the head business was nil but in fact the assessee has incurred the net business loss aggregating to Rs.21,22,545/ -. The Hon’ble High Court there also did not take the view that the gross total income of the assessee
19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view inferences drawn by the authorities below are not sustainable in law. The grounds on which the A.O. has added the amount of gift as assessee’s income are summarized by us in para 12. We do not agree that the persons showing income of Rs.80,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum would be persons
5.11 Now coming to the merits of the case. For this purposes, we are required to consider the scheme of taxation of income from house property. Section 22 says that the measure of income from house property is its annual value. The annual value is to be decided in accordance with section 23. Sub-section (1) of section 23, by virtue of the amendment with effect from the assessment year 1976-77
The assessee, who is a non-resident, brought money into India through banking channel and the manner in which this money was utilized in India is described in the Annexure. We have observed in the above paragraphs that because of the mode of banking channel, admittedly, used for the remittance in this case, the onus on the assessee u/s 69 stood discharged, and therefore it was not taxable in India u/s 5(2)(b) of the Act. The CBDT Circular (supra) squarely supports the case of the assessee. The fact that the transactions and events narrated in the Annexure look curious and suspicious makes no difference to the conclusions that we have drawn in this case, as per law, in the above paragraphs.
29. On a close reading of this section, we find that the deduction under this section is allowed for computing the profits and gains of the business of prospecting for or extracting or production of mineral oil, in relation to which, the Central Government has entered into an agreement. Only such deductions are allowed under section 42(1) as are specified in the agreement and that also when they fall in any of the
14. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the addition in dispute on account of alleged unexplained investment made by the assessee in the property was made by the AO on the basis of valuation report obtained from the DVO by making a reference u/s 142A, the provisions of which read as under:-
110. On a close reading of the provisions we notice that sub section (1) of section 80-IB provides for the deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this section where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from eligible business referred to in sub-sections (3) to (11) and (11A).the deduction
7.1 On bare reading of above provision, it is clear that any sum paid to discharge “any obligation” of the assessee would be a perquisite under the above clause. However, the important words in the provisions are, “in respect of any obligation” and “would have been payable by the assessee”. It is quite obvious that employer had obligation only to pay correct tax on assessee’s income
