It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment for A.Y 2008-2009 is sought to be reopen beyond the period of six years, solely on the directions issued by the learned CIT [A], which has been subsequently set-aside by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that otherwise, the re-assessment proceedings beyond six years is not permissible.
The Department further initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on ground that the assessee failed to offer explanation for making such a claim. It was noted that once the claim was rejected the onus was on the assessee to dislodge the revertible presumption of the claim of concealment of income. However, the tribunal deleted penalty by holding that merely because the claim is not accepted would not give rise to penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a legal claim in a transparent manner. Whether such a claim is acceptable or not, is altogether a different matter, it said.
The issue is one, namely, whether the assessee was entitled to claim benefit of section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 with respect to Government grant of Rs. 8.97 crores received during the assessment year in question.
When its book profit was nil on the last date of the financial year then the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax and therefore, interest u/s 234B and section 234C of the Act will not be charged
They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts may be noted from Special Civil Application No. 2548 of 2016.
However, there is an explanation to the aforesaid and in case of a composite order of any High Court or any Appellate Authority, which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, Appeal shall be filed in respect of all such assessment years even if the tax effect is less than the prescribed monetary limits in any of the years.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Visit Com Pvt Ltd (176 Taxman 164) held that in case of expenditure on website, there is no change in the fixed assets of the assessee and no asset has been created but it is a tool for facilitating the business of the assessee and therefore, held expenditure of website to be of revenue nature.
High Court held that Considering the Office Memorandum F. No. 404/72/93- ITCC dated 29thFebruary 2016 as a whole, there is no such requirement of pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand either at the time of submitting stay application or before the stay application of the assessee is considered on merits.
When the language of Section 115WA and 115WB is clear and unambiguous and even the intention of the legislature while enacting sections 115WA and 115WB(2) is very clear i.e. with respect to the deemed fringe benefits, neither there is any scope for either literal and/ or purposive interpretation nor there is any occasion to consider the intention and for that purpose the speech of Honourable Prime Minister in the Parliament.
As the applicant is not a signatory to the cheque, no liability can be fastened upon him for the dishonour of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
