The solitary issue urged in these two appeals is that Whether the Learned CIT(A) is right in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 50C in the case of both the assessees.
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for asst. year 2006- 07 declaring the income under the head Capital Gains at Rs. 28,767,565/-, which are related to the gains obtained on sale of three immovable properties.
The process of purchase of land, conversion thereof and sale, compel us to come to the conclusion that the * purchase of land, in itself, was with an intention to sell at a profit in the form of an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ and hence though it is an isolated’ transaction the income thereon can still be considered as business income.
Whether the vehicles hired by the assessee in execution of the transport contract can be termed as a Sub-contract and consequently the assessee is liable to deduct tax from the payment made for such vehicles u/s 194C (2) of the Act the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source, as per the provisions of section 194C(2), on the payments made to the lorry owners for lorry hire. Consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) shall not apply to such payments.
It is thus clear that the entire assessment order was not set aside to enable the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment; the order passed by the first appellate authority was only to enable to the Assessing Officer to vary the assessment originally made and not to take a reiook at all the issues which were considered in the original assessment order. Paragraph-2 of Circular No.334 is relevant in this context and hence reproduced for immediate reference:
For a finance company, money is the product with which it carries on the business. Since the directors have made maiden venture. The necessity of establishing good will and reputation, that too in a finance company, is of utmost necessity. At the same time, it cannot give a permanent license to the company to continue to violate the provisions of section 269SS/269T.
The effect of omission of section 34 and Rule 5AA and consequential amendment in section 32 by omitting reference to section 34 makes it clear that one cannot taken support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills, supra, after the amendment. Section 43(6) of the Act which defines the term “Written Down Value” reads as under :-
