Plain reading of provisions of section 11(2)(b) lays down that 85 per cent of the income is to be applied to charitable purposes or set apart and the moneys accumulated or set apart can be invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5). Clause (x) of sub-section (5) to section 11 prescribes one of the modes of investment as ‘investment in immovable property’.
It thus remains an undisputed fact that no addition has been made on the reasons recorded for reopening the completed assessment. Now, what is to be seen is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, since no addition has been made on the reasons recorded, no reasons for reopening the completed assessment survive and, consequently, the completed assessment could not have been reopened, or whether in spite of no addition having been made qua the reasons recorded, those reasons still survive and the reopening on the basis of those reasons is in order, as maintained by the department.
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that income in this case is chargeable u/s. 44D read with section 115A of the Act. However, I also note that tribunal in earlier round remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to give the finding as to whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under DTAA between the India and UAE.
In this case during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee company had incurred loss of Rs. 1,15,880/- in respect of derivative transaction during the period under consideration. Assessing Officer further noticed that the transactions in question have been made on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange which were not recognized for the purpose of Rule 6DDA and the notification to recognize these stock exchanges was issued only on 25.1.2006.
Delhi High Court in the case of Rajiv Tondon vs. ACIT 294 ITR 488 has held that in a case where two donors had absolutely no connection with the assessee and they made gifts to the assessee only because he needed money to buy a house and they wanted to help him. It was held that this was not only quite unusual but also quite unnatural. It was incredible that a complete stranger would want to gift lakhs of rupees to a person only because that person wanted the amount for purchasing a house.
Deduction of payment of employees’ contribution towards provident fund and ESI cannot be disallowed under section 43B, if paid before the due date of filing the return. ACIT Vs. M/s. Shakti Bhog Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The condition precedent for making the reference by invoking the provisions of Section 142A thus is that there should be something on record to show that the assessee in first place has made such investment outside the books or the investment so made by him is not fully disclosed in the books of account and once this condition is satisfied, the quantum of such investment made can be ascertained by the Assessing Officer by making reference u/s 142A in order to make the addition u/s 69 or 69B, whichever is applicable.
Reimbursement of custom duty paid by the assessee could not form part of amount for the purpose of deemed profits u/s 44BB unlike the other amounts received towards reimbursement. Following the view in this decision, Mumbai Bench in their decision in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines(supra)held that service tax being a statutory liability, would not involve any element of profit and accordingly, the same could not be included in the total receipts for determining the presumptive income.
Indisputably, certain discrepancies crept in while furnishing the information requisitioned by the AO from the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10 lacs from M/s Melco Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 5 lacs from M/s Poonam Corporation Ltd. towards share application money vis-à-vis information obtained by the AO from the aforesaid two companies u/s 133(6) of the Act.
Test of residence will be determined on the basis of number of days of stay in India and not by the interpretation adopted by the lower authorities in this case. It has not been disputed by the revenue that the number of days of the stay of assessee in India are less than 182 days. In these facts and circumstances the assessee’s arguments on this issue deserve to be upheld.
