The respondent-assessee had submitted that their total turnover was Rs.4697.23 crores, as against investment in shares of Rs.2.95 crores. In the previous assessment years they were maintaining dual portfolio of investment (capital asset) and stock-in-trade (trading asset).
In the present case, there was no basis for the AO to determine that the true value of the property was Rs. 1.25 crores, by adopting the return on capital method. The AO was under a duty first to ascertain what was according to him the true cost of the property.
On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person.
The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged at the relevant time in manufacture of organic chemicals. Under an agreement dated 9th June, 1987 with M/s India Craft, the respondent-assessee purchased 630 metric tonnes Isobutanol by sale on high-sea basis.
The assessee argues that the expression reasons to believe under Section 147 refers to objective circumstances. In the present case, the assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) after notice was issued under Section 142 (1) was issued and explanation sought in respect of all relevant matters.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed by N.Gopalaswami (Former CEC) & others and Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate challenging the appointment of Shri Shashi Kant Sharma as CAG of India made in May 2013
The Assessing Officer made two additions. Firstly, benefit under Section 54F of the Act was denied and capital gains of Rs.51,71, 994/- was brought to tax. The second addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.19,75,410/-
A plain reading of the Section 269SS indicates that (the import of the above provision is limited) it applies to a transaction where a deposit or a loan is accepted by an assessee, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee draft.
The assessing officer is a prospector of the revenue and he is no doubt expected to protect the interests of the revenue zealously, but such zeal has to be tempered with the rules of fair play and an anxiety to ensure that a opportunity is not lost to the assessee to make alternative arrangements for clearing the tax dues, once the stay applications filed under section 220(3) are rejected.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v Kultar Exports [TS-315-HC-2014(DEL)] pronounced on 23-05-2014 wherein the assessee has claimed deduction for the AY 2001-04 under Section 80HHC which provides deduction to the exporters.
