Regarding the addition made u/s 41(1), we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly invoked this provision. There is neither any remission nor cessation of the liability. The Assessing Officer has simply added all the credits appearing in the balance sheet which could not be hit by Section 41(1).
We have the rival submissions and perused the records. During the year under consideration the assessee society had claimed as exempt a sum or Rs. 10.00 Lakhs received on account of damages for wrongful proceedings against the society taken up before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society. Mr. Manojkumar Goswami & Mrs. Shashi Goswami
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view , the reasons advanced by the learned CIT for refusing to grant continuation of recognition u/s 80G(5) are superfluous and do not stand to legal scrutiny within the meaning of section 80G(5).
So far as addition u/s 40A(3) is concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessee has purchased raw hides/skins for the purposes of manufacturing leather and leather products from local producers either directly or through their agents. Even though the Assessing Officer issued letters to various producers and some of these have come back unserved but it does not prove that the producers of the skin from whom assessee had made purchases are non-existent.
The revision u/s. 263 is not like the reopening of the assessment where once the assessment is reopened entire assessment is open before the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered in accordance with law. In the revision proceedings, the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show cause notice.
The provisions of the section contemplate to rectify any mistake apparent from record and non-consideration of any argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment and the same cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497,502 (Bom).
Section 32 of the Income Tax Act allows depreciation on both tangible and intangible assets and clause [ii] thereof enumerates the intangible assets on which depreciation is allowable. The assets which are included in the definition of `intangible assets’ given in clause [ii] are know-how, patents, copy rights, trademarks, licenses, franchises etc.,
13. It may be mentioned that provisions of section 145A were inserted by the Finance Act No. 2, 1998 w.e.f. 1-4-1999. It may be mentioned that prior to assessment year 1998-99 the entire provisions relating to method of accounting were contained in sec. 145 only. As per that sec. The income under the head ‘profits and gains of business’ or ‘other sources’
Apart from said business, the assessee invested in shares and treats shares as investment in his books of account. This itself manifests the intention of the assessee as to whether he proposed into dealing in shares or earn dividend and profit out of such investment. The Assessing Officer was guided more because of the total amount involved rather than the actual intention and the way of carrying on share transaction.
he letter-cum-certific ate issued by the donors were undated, letter given by Shri Habib-ur Rehman was signed by his wife, the details about the bank account were either not filled in the letters sent by the donors or the numbers of bank account given were incorrect, signatures of Smt Badrun-nisan Hanfi as given on the letter and -as signed on the cheque did not match
