The service which is rendered by the Google is generation of certain text on the search engine result page. This is a wholly automated process. There is no dispute that in the services rendered by the search engines, which provide these advertising opportunities, there is no human touch at all. The results are completely automated and, as evident from the screenshots we have reproduced earlier in this order, these results are produced in a fraction of a second- 0.27 seconds in the screenshot reproduced earlier.
In our humble understanding, the provisions of Section 14A are indeed attracted whether or not the shares are held as stock in trade or as investments, even though the provisions of rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) cannot be invoked in such a case, and even though the provisions of rule 8 D(2)(i) are much narrower in scope than the scope of Section 14 A simplictor.
Assessee despite being given more than sufficient opportunity has not been able to explain the discrepancy in stock. No new document or evidence has been brought to the notice of the Bench, nor has the assessee been able to show how the document has been wrongly considered. As such neither on facts nor on law the assessee’s explanation is acceptable,
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.
