8. Having carefully examined the entire evidences available on the record in the light of the oral submissions of the parties, with reference to the provisions of law and the precedents relied before us and after giving anxious thought, in the light of the plain words used in section 263 of the Act and in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT
Nicholas Applegate South East Asia Fund Limited Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) – The question of application of section 292B cannot be prejudged by finding that return, notice, etc. is not as per the requirement of the statute and is/are invalid; the finding that the return or notice etc. is invalid or to what extent it is invalid is unnecessary and counter productive; if in substance and in effect return, notice or assessment is in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of the Act, the mistake defect or omission is to be ignored as per the underlining philosophy of section 292B.
9.1 From plain reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is ` erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power.
Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully in the light of the materials and the case laws referred to. The question for our consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of payment made by the assessee to its parent company by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred by the. parent company in connection with the activities carried on by the assessee.
(ii) where proper enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer and he has followed the principles of natural justice, the order passed by him cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue simply because the ld. Commissioner does not agree with him and he is of the view that addition of a higher amount should have been made;
13.5 That in the case of running contracts, no income, profits or gains can in fact be computed unless the contract is completed and if the contract is completed in a period of more than a year, the crucial time for calculating the income, profits and gains arrives only when the entire contract is completed in other words, argument was that the only method by which the gains or profits of the assessee could be determined was to wait until
“50C Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases – (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Stamp Valuation authority’ for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer
15. As a general proposition, it can be said that the payment for impairment of income earning apparatus, sterilization of a source of income would generally fall in the category of capital receipts. Compensation received for undertaking restrictive covenants of not competing with the business also generally fall in the category of capital receipts. The exception being a case, where such covenants are normal incident of carrying on business
14. The assessee has also taken a plea that the assessee did not deduct the tax at source on the interest liability credited to L T Ltd. as per the legal advice given by M/s. C.C. Chokshi Co. This explanation of the assessee has been rejected by the C1T(A) by saying that this submission of the assessee that no TDS was deducted by the assessee under a legal advice of M/s. C.C. Chokshi Co., lacks merit because this advice is
16. On the issue of applicability of section 28(iv) of the Act, we are however of the view that the same arises for consideration on the grounds raised in cross objection and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the same. We are of the view that provisions of section 28(iv) would not be attracted to a case of increase in capital of partners of a firm pursuant to revaluation of the assets of the firm. Under section 28 of the Act
