The assessee is engaged in agricultural and allied activity. This company is one of the group companies constituted by Shri B.Ramalinga Raju and his family members. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for the books of account of the assessee
According to decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case where addition is made on account of application of section 50C and Revenue failed to produce any evidence to the effect that assessee has actually received more amount than that shown by it on the sale of property then penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
During the assessment year, the assessee has sold its factory premises from which it has been showing rental income. In the computation of total income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1 ,34,95,220/- on the investment in three flats.
In the instant case, the amounts were paid in respect of an obligation in respect of purchase of flat through agreement, therefore, no fault can be found on the part of the AO for treating these charges as interest and liable for TDS u/s 194A of the Act.
In the case of the assessee, summons issued by the Assessing Officer to the shareholder companies were duly served upon them and the shareholder companies responded to the Assessing Officer by affirming the investment made
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as a result of search assessments made u /s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered. It was held that concealment of income has to be seen with reference to additional income brought to tax over and above the income returned by the assesee in response to notice issued u/s 153A
Assessee (Salman Khan) in the present case is a leading film actor who derives income from profession of acting and advertisement assignments. The returns of income for both the years under consideration i.e assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 were filed by him on 28-11-2003
Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee has not received any exempt income and in the absence of the assessee receiving any exempt income, there is no justification in deriving expenses attributable for earning income which is not received by the assessee.
The Assessing Officer has made disallowance of Rs. 2.63 Crores under Section 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of tax at source on the payments made to nonresident translators. The authorities below have held translation services to be technical in nature.
On careful consideration of above contention, we are of the view that there may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there can not be any protective assessment/addition without a substantive assessment/addition, meaning thereby there has to be some substantive assessment/addition first which enables the AO to make a protective assessment/addition.
