16. On the perusal of the return of income, the statement of total income alongwith notes thereto and form no. 30 claiming refund, filed alongwith the return of income, it is clear that though the assessee had shown total income at Rs. 5,11,68,95,840, the assessee claimed its total tax liability to be Rs. Nil for the reasons given in the notes, and claimed the refund of tax that was deducted at source
19. First we will marshal the facts of the present case. The assessee had availed terms loans from three banks, viz. ICICI Bank Ltd., Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), Hong Kong. These terms loans were availed by the assessee company for the purpose of acquiring capital assets necessarily to be deployed in the manufacturing system
12. Under the provisions of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer has the power to reassess the income for any Assessment Year where he has a reason lo believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any Assessment Year. The power is also given to Assessing Officer to recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance for the Assessment Year
12. We have heard both the parties. The first contention of the learned AR is that section 195 is not applicable because the deductee is a tax resident of India and is being assessed in India. This ground of appeal has been decided by the learned CIT (A) against the deductor and the deductor has not filed any cross objection. Therefore, it cannot be held that section 195 will not be applicable
13. After hearing both the parties, we do not find merit in the appeal of the revenue on this issue for the reasons given hereafter. The question for adjudication is whether the sum of Rs. 42,09,874/-represen ting the payment of salary to the engineers at Head Office in respect of the work done by them vis-a-vis the Halida Project in India can be considered as head office expenses for the purpose of section 44C of the Act
7.4 The reconstruction of a business or an industrial undertaking must necessarily involve the concept that the original business or undertaking is not to cease functioning, and its identity is not to be lost or abandoned. The concept essentially rests on changes but the changes must be constructive and not destructive. There must be something positive about the whole matter as opposed to negative
5.8 The question whether income from property should invariably be taxed under the head “income from house property” is to be decided after taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all factors prevailing in a given case. The Courts have formulated different tests to determine the head under which such income can be taxed. Merely because income is attached to immovable property
4. We have carefully considered the arguments on both the sides. We have also perused the order sought to be rectified. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal formulated the questions arising in the appeal. These are No.l to 5 as recorded in para 17 of the order. As regards first question the Tribunal held that the assessee has business connection in India. However, after considering clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1 )(i) of the Act
15. Though a search and seizure operation was conducted on 31.05.2003, but no indiscrirninating material was found therein. It seems that consequent upon the search in response to a notice under section 153A the assessee opted that the original return be taken as a return under the aforesaid provision. Thereafter, a questionnaire was issued requiring the assessee to inter-alia file the details of loans and gifts
15. We have heard both the parties at length and carefully gone through the materials available on record. In the instant case, the controversy to be resolved is whether assessee was a Local Authority for the year under consideration and as such was eligible for exemption of income u/s. 10(20) of the Act or not. Section 10 of the Act deals with the income which are not to be included in computing total income of previous year
