We have noted that the Assessing Officer’s observations to the effect that ‘business’ under section 28 has a very broad meaning and may be used in different connotations” and that it includes adventure in the nature of trade, as also his reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Rajputana Textiles (Agencies) Ltd. v. CIT 42 ITR 743 (SC), wherein it was held that where from the very beginning, purchase of shares is made with the intention of selling them, at a profit, it is an adventure in the nature of trade. However, we are unable to see any merits in these arguments either.
In the present case, the Fly Ash Handling System, even though classified under plant and machinery as a general item, is still qualified as a different class under the heading ‘Air pollution control equipment’ entitled for higher amount of depreciation. Therefore, the special category, under which air pollution control equipment is placed, applies to the Fly Ash Handing System installed by the assessee. Its eligibility for higher amount of depreciation will not be shadowed by the general rate provided for plant and machinery.
The appeal is, however, time barred by 24 days. The Assessing Officer has moved a petition seeking condonation of this delay. Having perused the said petition, and having heard rival contentions on the same, we are inclined to condone the delay as the delay seems to have been explained by a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits.
The agricultural land situated in areas lying within a distance not exceeding 8 kms. from the local limits of Municipalities or Cantonment Boards are covered by the amended definition of ‘capital asset’, if such areas are, having regard to the extent of and scope for their urbanization and other relevant considerations, is notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Central Government in its Notification No. 11186 dated 28-12-1999 clearly clarifies that agricultural land situated in rural areas, areas outside the municipality or cantonment board etc.,
In this case there is nothing in the reasons to indicate that there is an escapement of income, but, at the most, need to verify that the reasons of discrepancy between income from profession as per return of income vis-à-vis as per the certificates of tax deduction at source. A variation in these two figures does not necessarily lead to escapement of income,
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Siddharth Salarpuria, first of all took us to the accounts of the company from where he stated that the share capital of the company as on 31.03.2007 was at Rs. 5,56,43,400/- and reserve and surplus at Rs. 21,61,28,161/- and this year’s profit i.e. net profit as per P&L Account before making provisions for taxation is Rs. 3,50,51,698/- and if we reduce prior period adjustment of Rs. 5,10,339/-,
The hearing was closed at this stage, pronouncing the result of these appeals by the Revenue against it; it being the common contention of both the parties that the provision of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) stood attracted and satisfied in the instant case for the relevant years.
The difference between a write off of a debt as irrecoverable and a provision against the same on account of or for it being bad and doubtful for recovery, is not technical but factual and, further, real and not imaginary.This is more so in view of the express provision of law by way of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii), brought on statute by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01-04-1989.
We find that there is no reason whatsoever set out in the show cause notice as to why the Commissioner was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Unless the Commissioner specifically sets out such reasons in the show cause notice, and hears the assessee on the same, it is not open to him to exercise his revision powers under section 263 of the Act.
On the facts of the present case, we have noted that there is no finding by any of the authorities below that services are rendered to non-members. There is a reference to the services rendered to the outsiders in the orders of the authorities below, but it is in the context of analysis of judicial precedents, and, therefore, nothing turns on that. As long as services are rendered to the members, even for a remuneration, the same will be covered by the principles of mutuality. As far the allegation that members have deducted at source from payments to the assessee and for this reason, the receipt is to be taken as taxable receipt, it is only elementary that conduct on the part of the person making payment cannot determine character of receipt in the hand of recipient.
