Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Gujarat High Court

Time-limit to exercise revisionary power to be computed from original assessment date as concerned issue was never remanded

January 15, 2013 611 Views 0 comment Print

In the original assessment order deduction under section 80I had been granted on the total income, inclusive of the income under section 68 of the Act. The grant of such deduction was not questioned by the revenue at the relevant time. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the same was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue pertaining to addition of Rs. 59,56,000/- credited in the books of account by way of share application money on the ground that the same was an unexplained credit out of income from undisclosed sources of the assessee.

Reassessment on ground of treatment of cenvat credit in closing stock not valid if assessee furnishes full details

January 14, 2013 1709 Views 0 comment Print

Only aspect mentioned in the reasons recorded is about the requirement of inclusion or non-inclusion of cenvat/modvat credit in closing stock. The Assessing Officer stated in his reasons inter alia that on perusal of break up the loans and advances in the balance-sheet, it was found that the assessee had at the end of previous year a particular amount of cenvat credit not utilised and that the assessee had not credited the said amount to the profit & loss account.

In absence of declaration by assessee that it does not intend to honour its liabilities, provisions of S. 41(1) cannot be invoked

January 13, 2013 948 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, there is no unilateral act of the assessee of making any entry in respect of the trading liabilities in its books of account. Therefore, a sine qua non for attracting section 41 in the present case, is that the assessee should have obtained a benefit by way of remission or cessation of a particular amount in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year in question.

Reassessment initiated to disallow loss on hedging of metals losses is untenable if losses were allowed originally

January 13, 2013 1928 Views 0 comment Print

The petitioner has been claiming that he is dealing in hedging besides in the wholesale business of gold and silver ornaments. To insure against price fluctuations, he has been hedging in such metals in MCX. The claim of the assessee, therefore, had to be examined in terms of clause (a) to sub-section (5) to section 43 of the Act. If for some reason such claim was not sustainable,

Tribunal may recall its order passed ex-party if Assessee gives sufficient reasons for the same

January 12, 2013 982 Views 0 comment Print

Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act itself provides that the claim for deduction as bad debt would not be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year.

Reassessment to check excess disallowance of deduction not justified if primary facts were disclosed during original assessment

January 10, 2013 468 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, the assessee disclosed the factum of housing project, the construction of shops and the profit derived therefrom. These were the primary facts sufficient for the Assessing Officer to proceed in its assessment process. He had undertaken such a process and applied the facts to the provisions of law by applying his mind.

Reassessment not justified if no failure by petitioner to disclose truly & fully all material facts

January 9, 2013 657 Views 0 comment Print

We notice that in the return filed by the petitioner, in addition to claiming deduction of gross income of interest and dividend of Rs.1,81,27,606 under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the petitioner further provided various details. For example, in the Annexure-VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs. 53,71,450 and interest income of Rs. 1,27,56,156.

No Service tax on Services Received in India from Outside India prior to introduction of s. 66A wef 18-4-2006

January 9, 2013 552 Views 0 comment Print

The case of the petitioners is that the authorities have no power to levy such service tax on the petitioners, who are service recipients as per Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules and also as per subsequently introduced Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18.4.2006.

Computation of Income in case of Bank which claims deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) & 36(1)(viia) simultaneously

January 9, 2013 4112 Views 0 comment Print

We notice that in this respect the provision is silent. We may therefore record that the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment would ordinarily give rise to a question of law particularly when it is pointed out that there is no previous decision of any High Court on the subject However, the issue has been made sufficiently clear by the CBDT Circular No.17/2008 dated 26-11-2008. In the said circular, this very issue has been examined and clarified in the following manner:—

Reopening justified if Assessee not disclosed in return of income that it was a search case

December 25, 2012 1096 Views 0 comment Print

In the facts of the present case also, it may be that if the Assessing Officer had made some efforts and examined the record of the previous assessment year, he may have come to know that this was a search and could have taken consequent action thereon. However, that by itself would not absolve the petitioner from the duty to disclose all primary facts before the Assessing Officer.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031