Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that surrendered income during the survey has to be assessed separately as deemed income and set off of losses u/s 70 & 71 was not possible against such income.
In the present case, the revenue authorities, sought to apply the statutory presumptions, as contemplated under section 132(4A) to the facts of the present case, without establishing the factum that the assessee was found in possession or control of any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing etc. In this specific context, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible, as to how the provisions of section 132(4A) are applicable to the facts of the case, without showing satisfaction of the statutory conditions precedent contained therein.
The various clauses of the MOUs need to be examined in the light of the criteria laid down by the Courts to determine whether the doctors attached to the appellant hospital are employees of the hospital. The test which is uniformly applied in order to determine whether a particular relationship amounts to employer-employee relationship is the existence of a right of control in respect of the manner in which work is to be done by the person employed
Consideration as shown in the Registered Sale Deed cannot be equated with ‘Fair Market Value’, as defined in the Act u/s 2(22B) of the Act. /Therefore, adoption of average value of land at Rs. 27,030/- per acre as on 1.4.1981, as ‘Fair Market Value’ of the land in question, for the purpose of computation of capital gains, is not legally and factually tenable. ‘Fair Market Value’ represents the price that a seller is willing to accept and a buyer is willing to pay in the open market. The price or sale consideration as specified in the Registered Sale Deed of an asset in India represents the price or sale consideration negotiated or determined not in the open market but in the parallel operating market where such transactions crystallized in a clandestine manner. In view of this, sale consideration of an asset, as recorded in the Registered Sale Deed is generally understated and, hence, cannot he taken as ‘Fair Market Value’ as on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of computation of ‘Capital Gains’.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P.K. Badiani v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 642 observed that accumulated profits would mean profit in the commercial sense and not assessable taxable profits. In that case development rebate reserve created by the company by charging profit and loss account was held to be accumulated profits though the same was liable to be deducted as rebate.
The perusal of the profit and loss account placed at page 9 of the paper book reflects the assessee to have followed project completion method, i.e., it has shown the receipts and corresponding expenditure in respect of each of its venture separately and had over and above the same claimed expenditure of Rs. 35,27,560. The schedule of the said expenses totalling Rs. 35,27,560 is placed at page 19 of the paper book.
Once the assessment was reopened to investigate the purchase of various lands then the Assessing Officer was duty bound to make enquiries to examine the purchase of these land as well as the sources for the same. The Assessing Officer has simply issued notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2) which is standard for format of the notice.
By looking at the aims and objectives of the assessee’s-society it was apparent that one of the objectives was construction of suitable memorials in the memory of war heroes but the other objects to be taken up the assessee-society by way of setting up educational institutions, arranging seminars, holding meetings/conferences and to organize lecture exhibition etc.,
The condonation of delay for non-filing of appeal is to be considered in the light of the facts of the case and existence of sufficient cause or reasonable cause. In the absence of any reason, delay cannot be condoned and where there was actual negligence and inaction which led to in inordinate delay, the delay cannot be condoned as held in Dy. CIT v. Jaya Publications [2010] 123 ITD 53 (Chennai).
Voluntary Retirement – Assessee can claim both exemption u/s 10(10C) & rebate u/s 89- The assessee is entitled to the exemption under section 10(10C) of the Act and also rebate under section 89 of the Act in respect of the amount received in excess of Rs.5,00,000 on account of voluntary retirement. Thus their Lordships have held that the assessee, who opts for voluntary retirement, is not only entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) but also rebate under section 89 of the Income Tax Act.
