Subash Chand Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh)- In the present case, the AO has found that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 27,90,000/- towards purchase of flat/plot and for meeting household expenses in the year under appeal. The assessee could not have paid the aforesaid amount without having the money with him. No material has been placed before us to establish that the assessee had actually been paid by the buyer any money over and above Rs. 8.00 lakhs or that the assessee has actually received from the buyer of the agricultural land over and above Rs. 8 lakhs.
ACIT Vs. Punjab State Coop & Marketing (ITAT Chandigarh)- The assessee has placed on record the details of investment along with the amount of investment in shares in five companies made by the assessee. On perusal of the said details reveal that majority of the investments were made prior to 1994 and on the said investments
CIT Vs Sanjay Chhabra ( Chandigarh High Court)- The sole point for consideration in this appeal is that once the Revenue had come to the conclusion that the assessee had made sales of apples amounting to Rs. 5,75,654/- to one Jagdish Chawla, whether it was the entire amount, or the 5% profit thereof, being commission on such sale, that was to be added to the income of the assessee.
The salient features of the impugned case have already been noted by us namely, that the assessee is a Co-operative Society, set up by the Government of Punjab registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has duly noted that its primary business is to grant loans to members in Urban and Rurah Co-operative Housing Societies of the State of Punjab for construction of houses and Housing Complexes. The assessee has been ea
The only issue arising in the appeal was whether while computing the income from capital gains, the fair market value of the property on the date of sale could be adopted as against the sale consideration received by the assessee. In the facts of the instant case, the assessee had sold the property for a total consideration of Rs. 15.25 lakhs. The said value of consideration was accepted by the registering authorities and was not disturbed. The provisions of section 50C were neither applicable nor applied by the Assessing Officer.
No penalty is imposable in respect of vexed legal issues which are debatable or on which two views/opinions are possible. For imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c), the twin conditions of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income has to be satisfied.
The controversy squarely involves interpretation and, construction of the words “manufacture” and, “production” . The word `manufacture’ was not defined under the Act, uptill the insertion of section 2(29BA) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009, which reads as under:-
The assessee, a statutory Board, was set up for prevention of pollution of streams and wells in the State and other allied activities. It derived income from various testing charges etc. The CIT granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act on the basis that the activities of the assessee constituted a “charitable purpose” u/s 2 (15) and that its’ income was eligible
7. In the aforestated background now we may advert to the factual position in the instant case. In this case, after the processing of return under section 143(1) the Assessing Officer recorded reasons on 8-2-2006 to initiated proceedings under section 147/148 as under: ” the assessee filed return of income for the above noted assessment year declaring total income at Rs. Nil
We have considered the, rival submissions, perused the material on record. In the instant case, rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR on 05.07.2001, A copy of the summary record of the proceedings of the hearing held on 5.7.2001 before BIFR- have been placed in the Paper Book. It has been held in the aforesaid proceedings para 22 as under:
