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.
Whether revenue is right in passing order giving instruction to bank to pay 50% of the demand raised against assessee when appeal against the assessment order was pending before CIT (A).
The appellant is urging this Court to dwell deep into the factual material and render findings of fact of which the jurisdiction of this Court does not permit such an inquiry as the high court cannot entertain an appeal which involves only factual issue.
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the building had been developed to be sold or let out with no possibility of the terrace floor being subjected to such utilization. As there is no other purpose to be served by the property held on the terrace floor
Lump-sum payments are covered under the term royalty. The agreement postulated grant of permission to use or right to use intellectual property rights or knowhow and it is not a case of outright sale.
In regard to claim of expenditure on Registrar of Companies’ fee for increase in authorized share capital, the HC held that the same could not be allowed and was also not amortizable under Section 35D (2)(c)(iii) of the Act, not being fee for initial registration of the company.
The ITAT noted that there are three stages in operational business:- (i) setting up; (ii) post setting up but before commencement of business; and (iii) commencement of business and thereafter. In case of a building contractor
CIT (Appeals) did not offer any opportunity to the assessee to make submissions with respect to the materials obtained from the survey and unilaterally rendered findings, CIT (Appeals)’s order was bad for the reason that he did not follow the procedure prescribed by the law.
