(ii) where proper enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer and he has followed the principles of natural justice, the order passed by him cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue simply because the ld. Commissioner does not agree with him and he is of the view that addition of a higher amount should have been made;
9. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that a similar issue was involved in assessee’s own case for the earlier years i.e. AY 1991-92, 92-93 & 93-94 and the Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 12.6.1998 has decided the same in favour of the assessee for the said years following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of P.A.V.L. Kulandayan Chettiar
3. We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. We find that evidence exists on record that M/s Ronex International was habitually importing materials from Kaks. It is also a fact that this concern placed an order with the assessee for import of brass and plastic zippers as seen from pages 35 and 36 of the paper book. The Kaks was earlier carrying on the business of export of zippers,
5.6 In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee company has realized service tax on account of providing services and facilities in connection with the exploration or extraction of minerals oils in India. The service tax so realized is a part of receipts received by the assessee from ONGC. The service tax realized by the assessee is in respect of services specified under section 44BB and rendered by it to ONGC
24. The first question arises in these appeals is whether the assessee is bound to account for the profits on the sale of flats in respect of which possession was handed over by the assessee to the buyer, and the amount of consideration was also realized and was also paid directly to the bank. In this case, the ultimate registration of the sale document in favour of the buyer is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the construction of a particular flat is completed and the possession was actually handed over by the assessee to the buyer.
(iii) Even in the case of the assessee, the department is accepting the earning of income albeit on a different footing i.e. claiming the same to be salary income in contra distinction to assessee’s claim being business income by virtue of Section 28(va). Though reference is made to colourable devise in the hands of the assessee following Supreme Court judgment in the case of McDowell &. Co. (supra), the same confine
44. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. The assessments in the present case have been made u/s 153A of the Act. Section 13A provides that in case a person against whom search is initiated u/s 132A of the Act then notwithstanding anything contained in sections 39, 147,148,149 151 and 153 of the Income Tax Act, the AO shall issue a notice to such person
8. We have carefully deliberated on the rival contentions raised by the learned AR and DR. The controversy here revolves around chargeability of interest income to the tax which even though technically accrued as per the mercantile-system of accounting being followed by the assessee, but the same was not accounted for as income in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein there was
38. First and foremost rule of construction of interpretation is that in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, the said enactment cannot be construed to have retrospective operation and when amendment relates to a procedural provision results into creating a new disability or obligation and which imposes new duty in respect of transactions already completed,
THE use and spread of software application has been phenomenal in India. So is the case with the tax treatment of receipts resulting from either sale of software or licensing of software programmes. What is treated as royalty by the Revenue is actually reckoned as a plain sale of copyrighted article by the assessee. Thus there is nothing new about this dispute as decided by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the Motorola case
