However, in the impugned case there is no material on record to suggest or to hold that any sincere attempt was made by the Revenue to make the service through normal mode. For the reasons discussed above, the decision in the case of Jagannath Prasad & Ors. Vs. CIT (supra) will have square application to the present case and relying on the decision in the case of M/s Ganeshi Lai & Sons (supra), it cannot be held that service of notice by affixture in the present case was a valid service.
The assessee, a partner in a firm, received ‘share of profit’ and ‘salary’ from the firm. While the ‘share of profit’ was exempt u/s 10(2A), the ‘salary’ was taxable as business income u/s 28 (v). The assessee claimed deduction for business expenditure incurred by him. The AO held that as the assessee had exempt income, s. 14A applied and a part of the expenditure had to be disallowed.
As can be seen from the above the adjustment made by the assessee is according to the provisions of the Act. Since both the industrial galas fall within the block the WDV is increased by the actual cost of the asset falling within the block and reduced by the amount payable in respect of the asset sold. Accordingly we do not find any mistake in assessee’s working of the block of assets which is according to the provisions of section 43(6)(c). The A.O.’s action in denying the inclusion of asset within the block is on the condition that the asset was not put to use.
Where fair market value of the capital asset under transfer is less than the valuation as per SVA and such valuation as per SVA becomes final under Stamp Duty Act then the assessee is left with no choice and has to pay tax on the notional sale consideration on the valuation as per SVA.
In the present case, the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28.03.2003, pertaining to the A.V. 1996-97. Section 147 authorizes and permit the Assessing Officers to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment.
No doubt that the possession of three currency notes with the assessee has raised a presumption that the amount stated on those currency notes was paid by the assessee to the said Shri Shankar Lai. However, the same was a rebuttable presumption. The assessee has explained that these payments were made by the assessee subsequent to the date of survey
Admittedly, it is a case of sale of shares. In this regard, share purchase agreement was entered into on 27.1.2005 and final delivery of shares took place on 1/15.4.2005. In the share purchase agreement, detailed provisions were made restricting the vendors from exercising various rights in relation to shares. Revenues’ main contention is that on account of substantial extinguishment of rights in pursuance to share purchase agreement
Parties are heard arid their rival submissions considered. The following facts are not in dispute: a) the identity of the donor is not in doubt; b) gift is by a declaration deed; c) donor has given an affidavit affirming the making of the gift; d) there is a confirmation through post of gift per Demand Draft; e) affirmation of the assessee in examination on oath recorded by A.0 f) affirmation of the donor in examination on oath recorded;
Searches conducted by the Income Department are important means for unearthing black money. However, under the scheme before insertion of special procedure for assessment of search cases, valuable time is lost in trying to relate the undisclosed incomes to the different years. Tax evaders generally manage to divert the focus to procedural and legal issues and often invent new evidence to explain undisclosed income. By the time search r
. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had plant and machinery already existing prior to the receipt of finance from Wipro Finance Ltd. It is apparent from the chart of payment referred to by the learned AR of the assessee. This clearly indicates that the loan was not given directly or indirectly for the purpose of purchasing plant and machinery.
