Even a notional loss can be claimed by way of a business loss and as a deductible item in computing the income of the assessee for the year, as it is a computation on notional basis, it is made dependent on the manner of conduct of the assessee in respect of the earlier assessment period and particularly as to the assessee has been following this uniformly over a period of years and the test being when there was a notional gain as to whether it had been offered for tax etc.
In the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Karnataka High Court has laid down the following Principles for levy of penalty Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability.
The application made, for recalling the order dated 19th November, 2012, has failed to convince the Court to the fullest extent. The person sworn-in to the affidavit has stated that he was managing the affairs of the Company and he was in the Country for six months, itself, is not sufficient to recall the winding-up order. First of all, he should have stated as to how only he was responsible to file this affidavit when other Directors were available.
The petitioner is a company incorporated on 24th April, 2006 as a Private Limited Company and doing business of selling, reselling and exchanging, etc. and dealing in all relevant components of computers. The respondent had approached the petitioner to hire the computers and laptops, by entering into an agreement. In view of the agreement, the respondent had hired computers, laptops, and peripherals from the petitioner.
I have gone through the papers and the previous orders passed by this Court. It is found from the order sheet that the respondent himself has admitted the debt and he filed memo and further his memo again reflected in the joint memo filed and based on the post dated cheques issued in terms of the memo/joint memo, the petition was closed. The post dated cheques came to be dishonoured.
Mr. A. Shankar, learned counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this appeal at this point of time pointing out that the revenue that is involved is not more than Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore, in terms of board Circular No. 2/05, dated 24.10.2005 the appeal should not be entertained.
Amalgamation does not come within the scope of ‘transfer’ as defined in Section 2(47) of the Act and such being the view taken not only by this court, but Madras High Court and also the Supreme Court, there is no question of holding that the assessee disentitles the benefit of Section 80-I of the Act.
In the instant case, the assessee has purchased the property jointly with her husband. She has invested the money in rural bonds jointly with her husband. It is nobody’s case that her husband contributed any portion of the consideration for acquisition of the property as well as bonds. The source for acquisition of the property and the bonds is the sale consideration. It is not in dispute. Once the sale consideration is utilized for the purpose mentioned under sections 54 and 54EC, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of those provision.
Though Division Bench has specifically made an observation to provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, that has not been complied by the parties. More particularly the petitioner in proving his claims and virtually the claim is made only on the basis of the typed script and no original material is produced and the parties are not at all examined.
CIT and Anr v Shetron Limited (Karnatka HC) – In the present case, the total income assessed was Rs.21,25,981/-. This income became taxable because of denial of unabsorbed investment allowance and unabsorbed depreciation allowance to the extent of 1/3rd of such amount. When such amounts came to be restricted to an extent of 2/3rd of such amount, automatically Rs.21,25,981/- would be enhanced by virtue of provision of section 34-A.
