The sale/transfer of stock-in-trade cannot be equated with the transfer of capital asset under section 2(47). The meaning of the words “otherwise transferred” in section 45(2), should be according to its ordinary popular and natural sense, and it should not include a transaction referred to under sub-clause (v) of sub-section (47) of section 2 in relation to a ‘capital asset’.
6. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the orders. The short question here is whether credits for tax paid as provided in section 115JAA of the Act has to be given before charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B or after charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, in the later years, when such credit is claimed. Even, before the substitution of Explanation 1
The assessee purchased the Indira Vikas Patra during the financial year 1997-98. The Indira Vikas Patras are shown as investment in the books of assessee since 1997-98. The Indira Vikas Patras are issued for certain denominations at half of the face value. The period of maturity varies on the basis of rate of interest and accumulation thereof. As per the provisions of Indira Vikas Patras
21. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the case of the Assessing Officer was based on the statement of Shri Ramesh Kumar, which was not confronted to the assessee, which was incumbent upon the department to do, since it was a case of reopening of a completed assessment.
7. We have considered the issue. The learned CIT (A) has considered that there was a change of opinion by the A.O. and he deemed to have formed an opinion at the time of original assessment on allowing 80HHC deduction on DEPB. There is nothing on record to support the opinion formed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue. The learned counsel during the present proceedings
If the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is sustainable on any of the reasons taken by the Assessing Officer, the initiation of reassessment cannot be declared as invalid; there cannot be any initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of an item of income or disallowance which has been made in another proceedings of the same assessee for the same year.
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
