It is undisputed that the vehicles were registered in the name of the respective customers. However, in the registration certificate a remark in terms of agreement was to be recorded to the effect that vehicle is held by the registered owner under a hire purchase agreement with the respondent assessee.
The only defect which could be pointed out by the department is that the auditor’s report was unsigned and unverified. The said defect indisputably has been removed by filing the certificate of auditor and also the signed report. In our view, it was a matter of slip of pen for filing unsigned auditor’s report.
Respondent in the present case submits that there is a illegal assumption of jurisdiction as the officer who made assessment had no jurisdiction at all to make the assessment. Opportunity was given by the Tribunal to the department to produce the transfer order transferring the case from office of Income Tax Officer, Azamgarh to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Asstt.), Varanasi but no such order was produced. In any case, no opportunity of hearing before passing of the transfer order was given.
This proviso makes it very clear that any profit or loss on account of jobbing will not be in the nature of speculation profit or speculation loss. Thus, even if it is accepted that the loss suffered by the appellant was on account of self-trading in view of proviso (c) to section 43(5) such loss cannot be treated as speculation loss.
Deletion of addition under section 68 for unexplained credits without examining creditworthiness of the persons or genuineness of the transactions for the mere fact that credit were made through Banking channels not justified.
ALLAHABAD High Court Rejects Revenue’s denial of Sec 80G(5) recognition on the ground that the assessee-trust did not commence one of the activities mentioned in object clause- The fact that the assessee was still to commence the activity of establishing a hospital for imparting medical treatment would not by itself result in the rejection of the claim for recognition.
From a reading of the clauses (a) and (b) of the Explanation to section 10(13A), which were inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976, it is absolutely clear that in order to claim deduction under sub-section (13A)
If the assessee had not bargained for interest, or had not collected interest, we fail to see how the income-tax authorities can fix a notional interest as due, or collected by the assessee. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of the Income-tax Act empowering the income-tax authorities to include in the income interest which was not due or not collected
In case of private assessee, the Commissioner will refer the matter to an officer to collect the material or Chartered Accountant for the purpose of audit. Thus, for the purpose of audit, the material can be collected either by the officer authorized by the Commissioner or by the Auditor himself. But, audit will be performed only by the Chartered Accountant.
From the record, it appears that originally, the dispute was between Accountant and Judicial Members of the Tribunal and it was not functioning. So, adjournment was sought by the petitioner, but the same was refused. However, on 06.03.2013, the case of the petitioner was decided in favour of the assessee in his presence.
