The Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in ITA 398/Del/2006. As seen from paragraphs 6 & 7 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Revenue disputed before the Tribunal the contention of the assessee that it had furnished the confirmation letters from the share applicants along with their income tax details, statement of bank accounts etc. The assessee, as seen from paragraph 5 of the impugned order had contended that the share subscribers were assessed to tax and since their identity stood established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above.
Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Continental & Eastern Agencies (Delhi HC)- In the case reported as (1967) 66 ITR 613 (SC) Ram Laxman Sugar Mills v,Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that it is open to the manager of a joint Hindu Family as representing the family to agree to become a partner with another person. The partnership agreement in that case is between the manager and the other person and by the partnership agreement no members of family, except the manager acquires a right or interest in the partnership. The junior members of the family may make a claim against the manager for treating the income or profits received from the partnership as a joint family asset, but they cannot claim to exercise the rights of partners nor be liable as partners.
Some machinery and equipment relating to the construction of the projects were not actually put to use, though they were kept ready for use and this factual position is not in dispute.
Section 44BB is a special provision for computing the profits and gains of a non-resident in connection with the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire, used or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils including petroleum and natural gas. Section 44DA is also a provision which applies to non-residents only.
Held that the provision of Section 50-C enabling the revenue to treat the value declared by an assessee for payment of stamp duty, ipso facto, cannot be a legitimate ground for concluding that there was undervaluation, in the acquisition of immovable property. If Parliamentary intention was to enable such a finding, a provision akin to Section 50-C would have been included in the statute book, to assess income on the basis of a similar fiction in the case of the assessee who acquires such an asset.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in these circumstances submitted that the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer on 26.03.2009 do not record or state that the agreement between the petitioner and Quest was not on record, and that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material facts.
Whether reimbursement of expenses includible in gross consideration for the chargeability of Service Tax? Whether Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules is ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act, 1994?
There is no dispute that after the partnership was reconstitued, the reconstituted firm had started a new business with an amendment to the partnership deed enabling the firm to carry on the manufacture and export of handicrafts items. Prior to the reconstitution the firm was authorized to merely carry on trading and exports of handicrafts etc.
If the business carried on by the trust is not in line with the object of the trust then whether the income from the business is liable to the exemption u/s 11. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that in case we hold that the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption because the Katha business was itself not held under trust, it would produce an anomalous or discriminatory result inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the Katha business itself would be held in trust
The assessee continued to earn the non-compete commission in his capacity as an employee, to refrain from carrying on any business similar to that of UC. The assessee, in this case, also continued his employment with the firm, and was given commission for doing what he was normally expected to do, i.e. work for the said firm in his area of expertise.
