The power of the assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act is not in dispute. A challenge made to an order passed on the objections of the assessee would in effect is a challenge made to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Such an order passed by the assessing officer is only at the stage of process of determination and not a determination by itself. The process of assessment is not required to be challenged before Court of law, as it is a still born child.
The assessee is the proprietor of Shri Vekkaliamman Builders and Promoters and he also happens to be the Managing Director of Southern Academy of Maritime Studies Private Limited, in which he holds share of 63%.
As far as the expression ‘gratuity’ is concerned, there is no definition of what ‘gratuity’ is, even under the Payment of Gratuity Act; yet, a monetary relief to an employee at the time of his retirement or termination of service is treated as ‘gratuity’.
The Tribunal has specifically found that in the process of manufacture of cotton yarn, cotton waste came to be generated and the use of the said waste by another manufacturer shows that it was used as raw material by purchaser.
It is not in dispute that the original authority passed the assessment order on 30.12.2013, as against which, further appeal lies to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act and the time for moving the Tribunal is 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Factually, we find that the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation. Therefore, if the department did not agree with the explanation, then the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Whether expenditure incurred to meet out the need for working funds in which expansion of share capital was undertaken, is capital expenditure even when the purpose for which expenditure was incurred did not result in creation of an asset or benefit due to intervention by an external agency.
The question as to whether the expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery is revenue or capital expenditure, particularly in the nature of replacements of parts, thus rests on the nature of expenditure incurred, vis-a-vis the benefit that the assessee derives.
Issue- Whether while computing the capital gain, exemption available under the head Capital Gain should be given effect and then only the provisions for set off and carry forward of losses should be applied under the Act?
The assessee’s contention is that the provision made towards the non performance guarantee is more in the nature of warranty. Thus, the company assured quality and performance and on any shortfall agreed for damages making provision based on the performance capacity
