6. We have verified the orders and heard:the rival contentions. There is no dispute that there was a qualification in the auditors report whereby the auditors had mentioned Rs.27,47,258/ – as the adjustment required u/s. 145A of the Act for the purpose of valuing the closing stock. Copy of the computation statement for the relevant Assessment Year filed by the assessee show that it had made a suo motu addition
I have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before me and the precedents relied upon. The assessee got share in the house property, as per the WILL of his father He became the joint owner of the property along with his brother. After becoming the joint owner of the said property the assessee sold shares for the purpose of construction of an additional floor in the house for him and the cost to the construction was claimed as exempted under sec 54F.
3. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. Learned Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(Appeals) have given much emphasis on the point whether assessee has committed a default within the meaning of sec. 194-A by not deducting the TDS when interest was credited to the interest provision account, In their opinions, assessee was following mercantile system of accounting
9. Part A of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) provides that if assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers and explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false. This explanation can therefore, be applied only where the assessee has either not offered any Explanation or where he has offered any Explanation
15. Therefore, in our view, the issue involved in the present appeals is essentially a question of fact and once this question is answered, the application of appropriate legal principles should not present much difficulty. We find considerable strength in the submission of the assessee that facts in its case were distinguishable from those in the case of Shambhu Investments (supra)
15.2 On a careful reading of section 6(1) alongwith the circular cited above we are of the considered opinion that where the individual is resident in the previous year, but was not a resident in India in 9 out of 10 previous years preceding the year or was in India for a total period of 730 days or more in seven previous years then his residential status will be that of resident but not ordinarily resident
21. In view of the above submissions of the assessee and in view of the fact that M/s.Sky Blue Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. is sister concern of the assessee, we find no merit in the contentions of the assessee that the transaction between the assessee and M/s.Sky Blue Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. fell through because of the non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding
10. The core of controversy in this appeal is against the deductibility or otherwise of an interest of Rs. 6,50,236 allowed to the partners which was claimed as deduction. The case of the Assessing Officer is that no deduction on account of interest to partners can be allowed. The learned D. R. submitted that the rental income of Rs. 16.70 lakhs was rightly held to be taxable under the head `Income from other sources’
6.6 There cannot be a straight jacket formula for detection of these defaults of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and indeed concealment of particulars of income and in accurate particulars of income may at times overlap. It depends upon the facts of the each case. In the assessment proceedings the ITO while ascertaining the total income chargeable to tax would be in a position to detect the specific
Any person from or through whom the non-resident is in receipt of any income directly or indirectly can be treated as an agent of the non-resident; the sole requirement of section 163(1)(c) is that only the non-resident should receive income directly or indirectly from or through the person of India.
