Mr.Chhotaroy learned counsel for the revenue mentioned that the profit and loss account of the assessee as furnished by the petitioners would clearly indicate that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the same.
Bombay High Court has explained the law in the case of CIT vs. Tip Top Typography on three issues related to determination of Annual value in calculation of Income from House property:- (i) whether the municipal valuation of the property was binding on the Assessing Officer
A plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, it is only the assessment/reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under Section 132A
If the production of cinematograph film amounts to manufacture of an article or goods within the meaning of section 104(4)(a) as it then stood, it follows that the said activity must be treated as an industrial undertaking within the purview of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Apart from the circular, we are satisfied that, even on a common sense view, “film production” will have to be considered as a manufacturing activity and the undertaking will have to be considered as an industrial undertaking.
Issue – Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the investment in tax free securities/investments are represented by assessee’s own funds in the shape of share capital and reserves, ignoring the fact that the assessee is a bank involved in transactions
What the section is designed to strike at is advance or loan to a shareholder and the word shareholder can mean only the registered shareholder. The Hon’ble Supreme Court following the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s C. P. Sarathy reported in 1972 (83) ITR 170(SC) held that the beneficial owner of shares whose name does not appear in the register of the shareholders of the company cannot be said to be a shareholder though he may be beneficially entitled to the shares but he is not a shareholder.
The Revenue officers must realize that just like other powers a executive power conferred in them is in the nature of a Trust. They hold office as trustees of the public at large. They deal with public revenue and public money and that cannot be wasted in such frivolous litigation. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/ each.
CIT v/s M/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (BOmbay High Court)- Supreme Court has expressly held that the amendments to section 43B that were brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 are retrospective in nature, we find that the ITAT was fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,82,77,138/- on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund of employees’ contribution.
Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. (supra), reliance on which was placed by Mr Mistry, squarely covers the issue raised in this Appeal. The facts in the case before the Karnataka High Court were that the Assessee was holding securities in different categories
The imposition of penalty was found not to be justified and the Appeal was allowed. As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on Assessee’s Appeal in Quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein
