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
4. We have carefully considered the arguments on both the sides. We have also perused the order sought to be rectified. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal formulated the questions arising in the appeal. These are No.l to 5 as recorded in para 17 of the order. As regards first question the Tribunal held that the assessee has business connection in India. However, after considering clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1 )(i) of the Act
15. Though a search and seizure operation was conducted on 31.05.2003, but no indiscrirninating material was found therein. It seems that consequent upon the search in response to a notice under section 153A the assessee opted that the original return be taken as a return under the aforesaid provision. Thereafter, a questionnaire was issued requiring the assessee to inter-alia file the details of loans and gifts
7. We have carefully considered the relevant facts, arguments advanced and the case laws cited. It is not in dispute that the assessments sought to be reopened were earlier completed only by accepting the same under section 143(l)(a) of the Act. When assessments are completed under section 143(l)(a) it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise
