Explore how Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholds consistency in mobilization advance treatment, referencing an accepted accounting method and legal precedent.
In this case ownership of the dredger was not transferred to the assessee in pursuance to the sale agreement, contrary to the claim of the assessee made in this regard. Even accepting the contention of the learned AR that no registration of dredger is required and customs duty is not payable on dredgers, it is a fact on record that the assessee has not produced any evidence of substance to prove its ownership over the dredgers.
The learned DR has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. He submitted that no cost of acquisition was incurred by the assessee as per the terms and conditions of the registered lease deed, and therefore in accordance with the provision of section 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, the cost of acquisition has to be taken at NIL. He referred to the term-4 of the lease deed dated 15.9.1966 wherein it was agreed that all the building and structure put up by the lessee on the said land remain the property of the lessee only.
Assessee is in the TT enabled services, whereas the said company Apex Knowledge Solutation Pvt. Ltd., is in the business of E-publishing which cannot be said to be in the same line of business. The functional differences are likely to affect the profit marking capacity of both the companies. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that this company is also to be excluded from the list of comparables.
In the instant case, the assessee was not under an obligation to carry out the work as it was not under the control of the lender and the possession of the machinery temporarily was passed to the assessee after entering into agreement with the lender. Therefore, in the present case, taking of the machinery and equipment on hire would not amount to a contract for carrying out any work as contemplated in s. 194C of the Act.
In view of decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier year, respectfully following the same, it was held that interest income earned during the year by assessee, from the fixed deposits made out of borrowed funds was rightly taxed by Assessing Officer under the head ‘income from other sources’. The ITAT in their decision for the earlier year, had found that the interest payable on borrowed funds had no connection with the receipt of interest. Following the decision of the coordinate bench, it was to be held that the interest payable on the loans out which the fixed deposits were made was not allowable as deduction under section 57 (iii).
Section 54 and 54F apply under different situations. While sec. 54 applies to long term capital gain arising out of transfer of long term capital asset being a residential house, sec. 54F applies to long term capital gain arising out of transfer of any long term capital asset other than a residential house. However the condition for availing exemption under both the sections is purchase or construction of a new residential house within the stipulated period.
It would be relevant to mention here that the trust was formed on 11-1-2012, the application for registration under section 12AA was submitted by the appellant on 27-3-2012, i.e., within a period of three months of its creation. The school activities started in June, 2012. The appellant submitted its books of account up to September, 2012 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, after examining the statement of accounts, for such a short period formed its opinion that the activities of trust were not charitable in nature. The Commissioner did not raise any objection on the objects of the trust. It was premature for the Commissioner to judge the activities of the trust by just glancing through the statement of accounts of the trust of such a short period.
It is the contention of the assessee that since the income earned by him from M/s Vijaya Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Limited has been treated as salary, the assessee is not obliged under the Act to pay advance-tax as provided u/s 208 of the Act. The assessee has also contended that as per the provisions of section 192 of the Act in case of payment of salary the entire tax payable has to be deducted by the employer at the time of payment of salary.
Tribunal has power to extend the period of stay beyond 365 days u/s.254(2A), third proviso, even if the delay in disposing off the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, there may be several other reasons for not disposing of the appeal by the ITAT.
