These four appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2004- 05 to 2007- 08 are directed against the common order of the CIT (A). Since an identical issue is involved in all these appeals preferred by the assessee, these are being disposed off with this consolidated order.
We have considered the rival submissions carefully in the light of the relevant material on record as well as the decision cited by the parties. After careful perusal of various authorities relied on either side would show that they are quite distinguishable because none of the case law deals with the training expenses. In these cases some principles have been laid down. We further find that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Ishikawajima- Harima Heavy industries Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax (supra) is not applicable because that decision
In the case of Mayawati v. CIT [2009] 222 CTR 117 (Delhi), it is nowhere mentioned that for drawing the presumption u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act, there is necessity of acknowledgment due.
The undisputed fact which is confirmed by the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Porus Kaka is that, no e-mail, correspondence, bill or any other documents or evidence pertaining to the impugned assessment year 2003-04 has been furnished or filed before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings despite requests to do so. Shri Porus Kaka on this undisputed fact wants us to rely on the copy of the e-mail correspondence of 27-10-1997 of one Ms. Sonali Surajhita. For ready reference, the copy of the e-mail which is so heavily relied upon by Shri Porus Kaka is extracted hereinbelow:
The controversy squarely involves interpretation and, construction of the words “manufacture” and, “production” . The word `manufacture’ was not defined under the Act, uptill the insertion of section 2(29BA) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009, which reads as under:-
After careful consideration of1 above provisions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the stand of the Revenue. As noted above actual cost should ordinarily mean real cost or real worth of assets. If it is not market value, then what is it? Mechanism to take W.D.V as provided in Explanation 2 to Section 43(6)(c) is not available in Explanation 3 o auction 43(1). Further, assets whose actual cost is to be determined under Explanation 3 are second hand and it is always difficult to find actual cost or value of such assets as compared to new assets. In the case of transf
(i) Mere identification of donor and showing movements of gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift, (ii) Since the claim of the gift is made by the assessee, the onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to such a gift. The assessee has to prove that the money has actually been received as a gift from donor,
In respect of shares acquired under stock option scheme, the difference between the price of shares at the time of exercise of option and the predetermined price is liable to tax as perquisite under s. 17(2)(iii) up to 31st March, 2000.
Assessing Officer has not made out any case for disallowing even a part of deduction allowable under Section 80IA. Once any condition laid down under Sub Section 10 of Section 80IA are not satisfied that Sub Section cannot be invoked and therefore no disallowance of deduction under that section can be made.
When the interest payable on the original loan is not allowable u/s 24(1)(vi), then the interest paid or payable on the second loan for repayment of original loan is also not allowable.
