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.
The notice u/s 143(2) served after the expiry of limitation of time is not valid and the assessment passed in pursuance of an invalid notice is illegal and void. Section 143(2)(ii) clearly stipulates service of notice and not issuance of notice.
6.1 The main question before us for decision is whether the interest income could be treated as “business income” or “income from other sources”. The answer to this question has to depend on how the interest income derived by the assessee. No doubt, normally, on the placing of funds in banks on short-term or long-term deposits the interest income derived from those sources would be “income from other sources”
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. In the instant case it is observed that interest expenditure claimed by the assessee at an amount of Rs. 27.90 lacs was disallowed by the Assessing Officer which was restricted by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 27.75 lacs being net amount of interest paid by the assessee
14.2 After considering the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon it is obvious that sub-sections (1) and (1A) of section 201 do not prescribe any time limit for the initiation of the proceedings or the passing of the order. We find that for the most of the actions under the Act, the particular time limit has been given for the commencement and completion of the proceedings
