In AY 1999-2000, before expiry of the original time limit of five consecutive assessment years for which deduction was available as per then applicable law, the amended law became applicable and the assessee was accordingly eligible for deduction for the extended period of 10 years, as against 5 years allowed under the preamended law.
Exemption under section 54F is subject to the provision of sub-section (4), meaning thereby, the amount of net consideration is to be appropriated towards the purchase of new asset within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place or if not utilised for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139, it shall be deposited (unutilised portion) by the assessee, before furnishing such return, in any account or in capital gain account in the bank or institution as specified in any scheme by the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette and the proof of the such deposit in the capital gains tax account shall be accompanied while filing the return.
Maa Vaishno Devi Ginning Pressing Udhyog Dhamnod Vs. DCIT (ITAT Indore) – No evidence was either found during survey or explained by the assessee which could establish that the surrendered income was earned from industrial undertaking. There is a uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that no purchase bills, sale bills, ginning charges bills, pressing charges bills were found during survey operation which remained to be recorded in regular course of business of industrial undertaking, therefore, there is no basis for claiming the surrendered income to be generated from/derived from the industrial undertaking. There is further finding that no entry tax, sales-tax, other taxes were found paid by the assessee on such unrecorded transactions, therefore, the onus is clearly on the assessee to substantiate its claim which has not been discharged.
The provisions of section 153C are analogous to section 158BD and, therefore, decisions rendered with reference to the provisions of section 158BD would apply with reference to the cases falling u/s 153C unless the context requires otherwise. The Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra) after considering the provisions of section 158BD held that:
The notice u/s 143(2) served after the expiry of limitation of time is not valid and the assessment passed in pursuance of an invalid notice is illegal and void. Section 143(2)(ii) clearly stipulates service of notice and not issuance of notice.
From the above provision, it is clear that the authorities mentioned in the definition of AO in section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be assigned the jurisdiction to any authorities mentioned in the definition by the CBDT under the provisions of section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to act as an Assessing Officer. Only in that circumstances that Assistant Commissioner or Dy. Director of Income-tax, other authorities mentioned in the definition u/s 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can act as fee Assessing Officer) In this case, the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Investigation II
9. Section 153A would be applicable where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of accounts or other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31st May, 2003. Therefore, before invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act it would be necessary to comply with the provisions contained under section 132(1) of the Act. Salient feature of section 132(1)
20. On examination of the license agreement and schedule attached with the same, we find that entire factory building along with plant & machinery have been given under the agreement by M/s. Ramco Ind. Ltd. to the assessee for taking over the production facilities. The agreement as a whole has to be considered. As per the agreement between licensee and licensor
