The principle is that the assessee has to prove the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor in order to discharge the burden cast on him, that a particular cash credit found in his books is genuine having regard to the nature and the source thereof and, therefore, cannot be added to his income under section 68.
Under Clause 2.1 of the assignment agreement dt.29.6.2001, CIDBI assigned and transferred the concession agreement in favour of the respondent and the respondent unconditionally agreed to accept the said assignment/transfer of the concession agreement and undertook to execute/perform the concession agreement as if the said agreement was entered into between NHAI and the respondent.
Assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director of the assessee company. They have considered the terms of the agreement dated 12-03-2003 among the parties to the joint venture and held that credit for TDS certificates cannot be denied to the assessee while assessing the contract receipts mentioned in the said certificates as income of the assessee. The income shown in the TDS certificates has either to be taxed in the hands of the joint venture or in the hands of the individual co-joint venturer. As the joint venture has not filed return of income and claimed credit for TDS certificates and the TDS certificates have not been doubted, credit has to be granted to the TDS mentioned therein for the assessee.
Assessee had received a gift of Rs. 22,76,750/-in U.S. dollars from an NRI, N.Mohan and the assessee had filed two confirmation letters, one in December 2006 and another on 10-07-2007 given by the donor stating that he had gifted the above amount to the assessee, that the assessee is his close relative, that he is a man of means owning a software company of a net worth of US $ 25 million, that he had gifted during the year 2002-03 Rs. 2.00 crores to rebuild a government school,
It is evident from the clauses referred to hereinabove, and from what has been narrated in this order earlier, that the bondholders were deliberately misled to believe that they would receive at least Rs. 250 in cash for each bond of Rs. 1,000, i.e., at least one-fourth of their principal latest by September 30, 2003. It is also clear that this scheme of arrangement was formulated by the petitioners only to avoid discharging the legitimate dues of the bondholders, even the principal amount due to them ;
Assessing Officer should record in the assessment order his satisfaction that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his return before imposing penalty, we noticed that in the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1982-83 (which is the subject-matter of I.T.T.A. No. 29 of 2000) and for the assessment year 1983-84 (which is the subject matter of I.T.T.A. No. 33 of 2000), no such satisfaction is recorded.
It is settled principle of law that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating the show-cause proceeding. A show-cause notice is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice.
The tax audit report filed by the assessee was as per Form No. 3CA which was applicable to the assessees carrying on business or profession. In the audit report, the nature of business was referred to as investment company and the method of valuation of closing stock was stated to be the lower of cost or market value which method is applicable in case of business stock only.
In the present case, it is an admitted position where the appellant had not furnished the return within time allotted to him under sub sections (1) and (2) and therefore, his case clearly falls within the provision of section 139 (4). Section 139 (5) merely stipulates that it is applicable to any person who has furnished the return under sub sections (1) or (2). In the present case, therefore, if the appellant had filed the return in time, and thereafter had filed a rectified return, he could be permitted to do so under the said provision. Therefore, from the aforesaid provisions it can be seen that the Legislature in its wisdom had intended to give the benefits of filing a revised return only to those persons who fall within the four corners of section 139 sub sections (1) and (2) of the said Act. If the legislature had intended to also give the same benefits to an assessee who had not furnished the return within time, it would have said so in sub clause (5). The very fact that sub clause 4 is not referred to in sub clause (5) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature.
When the appellant was paid Rs. 15.00 lakhs by Y. Kalyana Sundaram in full and final settlement towards his 50% share on the dissolution of the firm, there was no “transfer” as understood in law and consequently there cannot be tax on alleged capital gain. The appellant was correct in law in contending that the amount he received from Y. Kalyana Sundaram is towards the full and final settlement of his share and such adjustment of his right is not a transfer in the eye of law.
