Clearing difference has been determined on the basis of statement of purchase and sales of shares of security made on assessee’s behalf by the broker. CIT(A) decided this issue after examining the ledger accounts maintained by the assessee and contract notes issued by the broker.
The respondent assessee in all these appeals are partnership firms engaged in the business of banking and registered under the Kerala Money Lending Act. The assessees had filed return of income and the same was accepted in due course.
It was stated that in J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax; (1998)229 ITR 123, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after noticing that sub-Section 9 of Section 80-HH was amended by Act No.30 of 1981, Section 80-HH and Section 80-I were independent and consequently
Since the income of CGS International and Marble Arts & Crafts can only be classified under Article 14 or Article 22 of the DTAA – both of which provide that the income shall be taxable in the State of residence (UAE)–the issue as to whether the services provided by the two UAE entities fall within the scope of professional services under Article 14 is irrelevant to the outcome of this case.
There is undoubtedly no material available to even remotely reflect that consideration over and above what was shown to be paid in the registered sale deed of the said property was made over to the seller. In these circumstances, it was not fair in the first place to refer the said property for estimation of its market value by DVO.
That debentures are securities within the meaning of the expression understood in Section 2 (ac) and (h) of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956 and freely tradable. The moment the debentures were issued to ICICI, the latter could realize the money value thereof.
While setting aside the order passed by ITAT Hon’ble HC held that tax can be levied on real income not on hypothetical income. Realization of some entries is doubted and such entries can not constitute a valid levy of tax.
No new facts or material had come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to enable him to initiate re-assessment proceedings. All the material facts on which the Assessing Officer had based his purported reasons were available on record at the time when the original assessment order was passed.
Brief facts are that the assessee was registered as trust on 01.02.2001.Its application for registration as a charitable trust was granted on 27.12.2001. On 30.06.2002 the assessee received the IILM Undergraduate Business School,from the Ram Krishna and Sons Charitable Trust (RKSCT).
In our opinion since the assessed did not debit the amount to the Profit & Loss Account as an expenditure nor did the assessed claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessed is following the mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction under section 43B not claimed would not arise.
