Bhagwan Sri Rama Viraj man & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors. The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
Income tax – Sec 32(1) – Assessee-company claims depreciation on trucks registered in the name of Director – Revenue disallows – Tribunal allows the appeal – held, since the vehicles have been purchased in the name of the Director only for convenience sake and rents have been credited to the company’s account and even tax has been paid on the same, depreciation cannot be disallowed now as it is in effective possession of the company – Revenue’s appeal dismissed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the impugned orders and given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions.Section 2 (15)of the Act defines charitable purpose and Section 11 (1)of the Act provides exemption to the income derived by the trust applied for the charitable purposes
The provisions as provided under Section 80A-1 of the Act will have a over ridding effect, over, all other section in the chapter VI-A and the Act as per the intention of the legislature. Thus, section 80HH or any other section up to section 80U in chapter VI-A would be governed by section 80A of the Act as section 80AB makes it clear that the computation of income has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As such, if the income has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, then not only profits but also losses have to be taken into consideration.
Under s. 158BB, the procedure for computing the undisclosed income of the block period has been given. It provides that the undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period computed, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, on the basis of evidence found
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and the material available on record. The apex Court, in the case of Rajesh Kumar v .Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2006)287 ITR 91 while considering the scope of Section 142(2A)of the Act
Assessees who fulfill all the conditions are entitled to registration cannot be faulted. The contention of the Revenue that the assessees are not registered as an institution and hence not entitled for registration is also without any merit, because, there is no requirement under the Act that an institution
After passing of order by Settlement Commission, no power vests in Assessing Authority or any other authority to issue notice in r/o period and income covered under order of Settlement Commission.
In Y. Venugopala Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2003) 263 ITR 30, the Karnataka High Court interpreted the words ‘notwithstanding’ used in Section 88 of KVSS and has held that a matter which has already been settled cannot be reopened under the scheme and the benefit under the scheme should not be extended to an assessee even with regard to the admitted income.
The Section indicates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of the High Court no further appeal shall lie notwithstanding the above three situations mentioned.
