The Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court)- All the assets of the business were not rented out by the appellant company. It was doing the main business of manufactures, imports, purchases and dealing in scientific apparatus, chemicals, chemical products, articles of glass, metal, wood, paper etc., more or less connected with science, as given clause 3 (a) of the memorandum of association.
Shyam Enteprises Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court)-Amendment in S. 43 (3) w.e.f. 1.4.2004 does not make any change in the definition of the word ‘plant’, which remains an inclusive definition. It includes buildings or furniture and fittings, which are other than, and are not integrally connected with the plant. The building, which does not have separate existence, and is integral part of the plant, used for the purposes of business or profession, is not to be treated separately for depreciation.
CIT, Bareilly Vs M/s Henna Zebraat (Allahabad High Court)- The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Boda and Co. (P) Ltd Vs. CBDT, 223 ITR 271, according to which, if net proceeds are received in foreign exchange and credited then assessee would not be disentitled from exemption.
CIT, Meerut v The District Excise Office (Allahabad High Court) – The argument of the learned senior standing counsel that Section 206C does not find place in any of its clauses of sub section (1) and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable ignores the clause referred to above in Sections 246 and/or 246A of the Act. The clause referred to above does not relate to any particular section of the Act. It will be attracted subject to fullfilment of its ingredients. It is in the nature of a residuary clause and gives a right to an assessee to challenge an order by way of appeal if he is so aggrieved subject to the condition that he denies his liability to be assessed under the Act.
CIT v Atma Ram Tulsyan and Others (Allahabad High Court) – AO was of the view that the possibility of appreciation in the price of shares of lesser known companies in such short period appears to be remote. On this premise, the benefit of capital gains was denied. Evidently, in the absence of any contrary material, it is but obvious that the assessment order was framed on presumptions and assumptions.
If a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is challenged on the ground that information leading to reasons to believe for authorising search was irrelevant then how should this question be resolved? Should the court, Look into the records and decide it alone; or Disclose the information to the aggrieved person and then adjudicate upon it, after hearing the parties (a)The Director of Income-tax (Investigation) Kanpur had jurisdiction to authorise the search;
In absence of any notice issued under section 143(2) after receipt of fresh return submitted by the assessee in response to notice under Section 148, the entire procedure adopted for escaped assessment, shall not be valid When the Statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same.
A search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) was conducted on 9.5.2003 and 24.5.2003 on the business and the residential premises of respondent no. 5 Purshottam Das Khandelwal who happened to be the proprietor of the firm M/S Suraj Bhan Purshottam Das engaged in money lending business.
Where the investment made by the assessee while constructing the commercial complex seems to be a business investment, the rental income earned from the building as a natural consequence shall be business income.
The condition precedent to avail the benefit of section 57(iii) is that the investment must be proper and justified; proper investment means correct investment with intention to earn profit.
