In the decision of Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corp. of India v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 139. Section 44 was considered and so was the First Schedule to the said Act and particularly rule 5(a) thereof. The Supreme Court observed that section 44 is a special provision governing computation of taxable income earned from the business of insurance.
In Cargo Linkers (supra), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was not the ‘person responsible’ for making payment in terms of section 194C of the said Act. In that case, the Tribunal had also noted and found as a matter of fact that the assessee was nothing but an intermediary between the exporters and the airlines as it booked cargo for and on behalf of the exporters and mainly facilitated the contract for carrying goods.
It has been recognized by the Supreme Court itself in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500, that even where proceedings under section 147 are sought to be taken with reference to an intimation framed earlier under section 143(1), the ingredients of section 147 have to be fulfilled;
The credit given for TDS in an order passed under Section 155(14) read with Section 154 cannot be construed as a relief given in the original assessment order. Section 155 of the Act provides for various situations under which an order can be amended because of developments taking place subsequent to the date on which the order was originally passed.
The test of enduring benefit which was perceived as the true and applicable test to judge whether an expenditure fell in capital field has been, over the years, considered as a self-limiting one. The Courts have held that a proper approach has to be adopted and in doing so the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense
The general proposition that while remanding issues for fresh consideration by the assessing officer, the Tribunal should be very cautious in issuing directions, even if it is only for the guidance of the assessing officer. The direction should not give rise to a situation where the assessing authority is likely to feel incommoded by it.
The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the assessee’s wife.
Whether a complaint filed by one of the directors before the Common Law Board alleging irregularities such as illegal siphoning off of the company’s funds by two other directors constitutes tangible material, on the basis of which reopening U/s 147 is possible?
The absence of any explanation is statutorily considered as amounting to concealment of income. In the absence of any explanation regarding the receipt of the money, which is in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee, an adverse inference is sought to be drawn against the assessee under the first part of clause (A) of the said Explanation.
We are of the view that there should be a meaningful consideration which should be reflected on the note sheets in order to comply with the requirement of Section 35(2) of the Act. In this case, the file does not show any such satisfaction or opinion having been recorded by the Committee of Commissioners. On this ground itself this appeals fails and is accordingly dismissed.
