Explanation-I to section 37(1) provides inter-alia that any expenditure incurred for any purpose which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. This provision is clearly applicable to the case of the assessee. In a nutshell, it is held that misuse charges and interest on misuse charges are not deductible in computing the total income of the assessee.
It is thus clear that ‘willingness to perform’ for the purposes of Section 53A is something more than a statement of intent; it is the unqualified and unconditional willingness on the part of the vendee to perform its obligations. Unless the party has performed or is willing to perform its obligations under the contract, and in the same sequence in which these are to be performed,
The entire transactions of purchase/sale of securities/shares through derivatives and later on dealing with those shares/securities will determine whether an investment is made or stock-in-trade is procured.
Ld. DR submitted that the case should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for compliance of Rule 46A(3) of the Rules and the AR contended that if we reach to the conclusion that the matter needs to be considered by the authorities
Honorable ITAT held that It is not necessary that all categories of its business activities must start either simultaneously or the last stage must start before it can be said that the business was set up. Absence of flow of revenue irrelevant for deciding whether a business has been set up.
The assessee was owner of the property standing in his name which was sold; qua capital gain exemption u/s 54f was claimed by the assessee as the sale proceeds of the property were utilized for purchasing another house in the name of assessee and his wife. Wife did not contribute any amount towards purchase. Thus new house was purchased by the assessee.
The mandate of Sec. 194C is that the relationship of the person paying any sum to the person carrying out any work including the supply of labour should be in he nature of the principal to contractor. After anxiously examining the provisions of Maharashtra Mathadi Act and Scheme framed under it, we are of the opinion that there is no contractual relationship as a principal and contractor between these assessees and Mathadi Board,
Once the assessment was reopened to investigate the purchase of various lands then the Assessing Officer was duty bound to make enquiries to examine the purchase of these land as well as the sources for the same. The Assessing Officer has simply issued notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2) which is standard for format of the notice.
in the instant case, the assessee denied incurring any expenditure for earning income, which did not form part of total income during the course of assessment proceedings even when huge investments were made by the assessee in securities .
Assessing Officer made the addition merely on the ground of low gross profit rate. In our opinion, the low gross profit rate can be a reason for making an enquiry but, it cannot be the sole basis for making the addition. The trading result can be rejected only if the condition prescribed under Section 145 for the rejection of books of account or the method of accounting is fulfilled.
