This Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) was required to answer the question whether for the purpose of computing total world income of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, the income accruing in Uganda has to be reduced by the tax paid to the Uganda Government in respect of such income? The Court while answering the question in the negative observed that it is not aware of any commercial principle / practice which lays down that the tax paid by one on one’s income is allowed as a deduction in determining the income for the purposes of taxation.
We also note that the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Keihin Panalfa Ltd. (ITA No.11 of 2015) decided on 9th September, 2015 has while dealing with transfer pricing adjustment in the absence of segmental accounts held that adjustments have to be restricted only to transactions with Associated Enterprises. It further held that whereseparate accounts are not available, then proportionate adjustments to be made only in respect of the international transactions with Associated Enterprises.
This petition challenges notice dated 31st March, 2016 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned notice seeks to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10. The regular assessment proceedings were completed on 28th December, 2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act.
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Bombay Act) challengesthe order dated 6th December, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2006-07.
This conduct on part of the petitioner filing the petition interalia seeking early hearing of its appeal before the CIT (A) and at the same time when the appeal is fixed for hearing by the CIT (A), the petitioner is seeking adjournment on frivolous grounds indicating that the petitioner is not serious about attending the hearing. It appears to be time delaying tactics and abuse of the legal process. In fact on 11th July, 2016 the last adjournment sought by the petitioner was to fix the hearing of the appeal in August 2016. The very fact that the petitioner has been seeking adjournment time and again before the CIT (A) and filing the petition in this Court seeking early hearing of its appeal is an abuse of the process of law.
In the present facts there is nothing on record in the form of the Advocates letter, etc. to indicate that the petitioner acted upon his legal advise and the same was wrong. Therefore, whether the petitioner acted on advise of his Advocate or not is itself a subject matter of debate. Thus taking the application outside the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act.
Sub-section (10) of Section 80IA of the Act, cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case to restrict its deduction under Section 80IB of the Act on the basis of the profits of the Appellant’s wife unit at Valsad.
Revenue states that the impugned order itself holds that share premium of Rs.490/ per share defies all commercial prudence. Therefore it has to be considered to be cash credit.
The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd.
Business is said to have been set up when it is established and ready to be commence. However, there may be an interval between a business which is set up and a business which is commenced. However, all expenses incurred during the interregnum between setting up of business and commencement of business would be permissible deductions.
