The Hon’ble High court in the present case held that the assessee developed an infrastructure facility/project and was not required to maintain or operate, it was entitled to cost, plus the margin of income or profit. Assesee would be entitled to deduction under section 80-IB (10).
The Hon’ble High Court in this case held that when there is an assumption that the assessee did not maintain quantitative details of ingredients such as mixing gum, starch and oil, the conclusion could not be affirmed. As, decisions can’t be on the basis of Assumptions or Presumptions.
The assessee submitted that he was managing director of SISICOL, which had many deposit schemes and 290 units or branches to aid its operations. He was also a partner of the firm, which entered into an understanding with SISICOL
It would be the proximity of the reasons with the belief of escapement of income, which would be the determinative factor for reopening of the assessment. The remoteness of the reasons would obviate the possibility of a belief and would bring the case in the realm of mere suspicion
There is no dispute about the allowability of expenses. Only dispute is regarding the year of allowability. If the Assessing officer is of the view that the expenses are pertaining to the prior, the same are required to be considered for the prior and allowed in that year.
The court considered the reasoning of the Revenue and held, firstly as the arrangement was in place with the UTI (which had to purchase the NCDs at Rs. 389/- per NCD), the assessee gave effect to it (the arrangement). UTI paid Rs. 389/- per debenture to JISCO
The substantial time as extended in the previous judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I vs. C.J.International Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No.57/2015) decided on 09.02.2015, as discussed elaborately in a reasoned order of this Court
Whether CIT can give approval for initiating proceeding u/s 147 in place of JCIT who is prescribed authority to give such approval u/s 151 (2) of the Income-tax Act.
Whether a proportion of the project receipts, commensurate with the risks/performance obligations, should be attributed to the assessee JV to whom tender had been awarded for the project and undertook significant risks and responsibilities for the completion of the project
Hon’ble court has observed that in the case of Bajrang Lal (supra) it was held that it is settled law that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO.
