13. It may be mentioned that provisions of section 145A were inserted by the Finance Act No. 2, 1998 w.e.f. 1-4-1999. It may be mentioned that prior to assessment year 1998-99 the entire provisions relating to method of accounting were contained in sec. 145 only. As per that sec. The income under the head ‘profits and gains of business’ or ‘other sources’
Apart from said business, the assessee invested in shares and treats shares as investment in his books of account. This itself manifests the intention of the assessee as to whether he proposed into dealing in shares or earn dividend and profit out of such investment. The Assessing Officer was guided more because of the total amount involved rather than the actual intention and the way of carrying on share transaction.
The assessee is engaged in rendering Business & Management Consultancy and Marketing Services to its various clients against payment of professional fees. The assessee invested Rs 2,00,00,000/ – in 14,38,848.929 units of Sun F &C fund. The dividend of Rs.43,16,546. 70 received on 22.02.2001 was also reinvested in 4,09,151.252 units of the said fund as per the scheme of reinvestment plan.
The assessee had borrowed funds for the purpose of investing in shares. The shares were held for capital purposes as well as for investment purposes. In AY 2004-2005, the assessee did not receive any dividend on the said shares and so there was no exempt income. The Special Bench had to consider whether the interest expenditure
1. This Special Bench was constituted on the recommendation of the regular Bench which was hearing above appeals. The controversy relates to the computation of deduction u/s 80HHC to an assessee (industrial undertaking) after it has been allowed deduction u/s 80-IB of the Income Tax Act. In other words, the effect of provision of Section 80-IA(9) introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 is to be seen.
It is a matter of record that the assessee had not been allowed the cross examination of the party whose statement has been used against him in making the assessment the addition us thus in violation of principles of natural justice. Not allowing cross examination is a defect of procedural in nature. It is to be allowed in order to make the assessment by using the principal statement, the examination in chief tested on cross examination.
Brokerage could be claimed as collection charges if as per the agreement, it is the responsibility of the broker to collect the rent but provision relating to deduction on account of collection charges in sub-clause (viii) of section 24 stand deleted from Assessment year 1993-94 and collection charges are included in the lump-sum deduction of 1/4th of annual value allowable as deduction under sub-clause (i).
The assessee purchased the Indira Vikas Patra during the financial year 1997-98. The Indira Vikas Patras are shown as investment in the books of assessee since 1997-98. The Indira Vikas Patras are issued for certain denominations at half of the face value. The period of maturity varies on the basis of rate of interest and accumulation thereof. As per the provisions of Indira Vikas Patras
16. On the perusal of the return of income, the statement of total income alongwith notes thereto and form no. 30 claiming refund, filed alongwith the return of income, it is clear that though the assessee had shown total income at Rs. 5,11,68,95,840, the assessee claimed its total tax liability to be Rs. Nil for the reasons given in the notes, and claimed the refund of tax that was deducted at source
5.8 The question whether income from property should invariably be taxed under the head “income from house property” is to be decided after taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all factors prevailing in a given case. The Courts have formulated different tests to determine the head under which such income can be taxed. Merely because income is attached to immovable property
