Undisputedly the AO has not made assessment on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 rather proceeded u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of some pre-search enquiries to make an addition
In case, the owner of a brand name allows its usage to another entity, then a fee is recovered as a mode of compensation which is generally known as brand royalty.
Deduction u/s 80HH of the Act in respect of profit and gains from newly established industrial undertaking in backward areas would be given subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as provided in sub section (2) of the said provision. In the case in hand it is not the case of the AO that the assessee […]
The assessee had applied tax rate of 10% in the terms of the proviso to section 112(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, the AO has applied tax rate of 20% as the proviso below section 112(1)(c) was not applicable in the case of non-residents.
While the CIT may have proceeded on the basis that the reopening of the assessment was valid, this does not satisfy the requirement of law that prior to the reopening of the assessment, the AO has to, applying his mind to the materials, conclude that he has reason to believe that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment.
The ITAT Delhi bench in the above cited case held that in case of completed assessment if notice u/s 153A is issued then addition can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court after examining the said objects in light of proviso to Sec 2(15) has held that development authorities will not be hit by the proviso to Sec 2 (15). The reliance on the judgments by the Ld. DR are on different footing altogether. The reliance of the Board Circular is also not applicable in the present case as there was no change in the charitable purpose while doing the activity of development by the assessee.
AO is bound to furnish the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act within a reasonable period of time so that the assessee could file its objections thereto and the AO was to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order thereon, which the AO has not done.
The assessee is registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred the Act) and has been claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which has been denied by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the assessee is involved in commercial activities as the assessee receives coaching fees from the students of CA while giving coaching to the CA students.
He further stated that the reassessment proceeding is time bar and assessment cannot be reopen due to mere change of opinion after the assessment, the addition of Rs.29,65,101/- has wrongly been made, which was dully explained and duly credit in books of alc and there is no concealment.
