This is an appeal preferred against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.09.2016. 2. By virtue of the said judgement, the learned Single Judge disposed of a batch of writ petitions, which included, the writ petition filed by the appellant, before us.
In the instant case, the matter has been pending since 1999, and there has been no progress. The respondent/Department stated that the petitioner/Firm was an accused. Furthermore, the Principal Sessions Court, while granting permission to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s Application for compounding the offence, in its order, dated 28.04.20 15, observed that the offences are compoundable in nature, therefore, leave is granted to the competent Authority to compound the offence.
We take this opportunity to remind the State Government to put in place a policy decision to ensure that the Print and Electronic Media does not while reporting instances of similar nature from furnishing any details which are capable of enabling the readers or general public to come to know of the identity of either the victims or those juveniles who are in conflict with law.
Assessing Officer, could have only come to a conclusion that the subject transactions were bogus, based on substantive material, and not that because objections were not filed by the petitioner, the assertions made in the pre-assessment notice would have to be deemed to be correct.
HC directed Registrar (Administration) of bench to immediately circulate instructions to all Print, Electronic and Media Houses not to publish the names of practitioners and individual judges as a part of news item unless it is so essentially required.
Appendix I in Income Tax Rules, 1962 in respect of rates at which depreciation is admissible provides depreciation on computers including computer software @ 60%. Recently, in Dinamalar vs. The ITO [T.C.A.No.624 of 2016, Decided on 02.09.2016], the assessee in respect of the claim of depreciation on computers and computer peripherals, claimed depreciation on the items, viz.
The Hon’ble Madras HC in the above cited case held that the one time upfront payment made by assessee lessee to lessor for the acquisition of leasehold rights over an immovable property for a long duration of time say 99 years could not be taken to constitute rental income at the hands of the lessor because the dominant intention of leasing is sale of rights in immovable property for a long period of 99 years.
Under one time settlement the bank waived loan amount (used by the assessee for acquiring capital assets) which includes both principal amount of loan and interest on loan. Held that Waiver of loan is taxable under section (‘u/s’) 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
The waiver of a portion of the loan would certainly tantamount to the value of a benefit. This benefit may not arise from the business of the assessee. But, it certainly arises from business. The absence of the prefix “the” to the word “business” makes a world of difference.
The Hon’ble Madras High court in the above cited case held that central govt can notify a country as notified jurisdictional area u/s 94A inspite of the fact that there exist a Double Tax Avoidance Agreement provided the DTAA is not serving the intended purpose for which it was entered into.
