Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, there is no dispute in principle that the amount is otherwise disallowable on merits as has been accepted by the ld. AR in response to the second ground of the Revenue’s appeal.
From the facts of the case it reveals that not only the existence of outstanding liability of labour charges for so many years is improbable in the normal course of business but the assessee has also failed to give any evidence regarding the genuineness of the creditors,
If the assessee has really repaid the amount to the creditors then it will be injustice to him, if the amount is added to his income. Under such circumstances, we remand this case back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
Banks undertaking equipment leasing departmentally should follow prudential accounting system and only the interest charge component should be recognised as income and the recovery of cost of asset should be carried to balance sheet on the form of provision of depreciation.
In view of the agreement and various judicial pronouncements the hon’ble tribunal has held that there is a distinction between a case where the software is supplied along with hardware as part of the equipment and there is no separate sale of the software and a case where the software is sold separately. In the case, where the software is an integral part of the supply of equipment, the consideration for that is not assessable as “royalty”
We are aware that adopting a liberal view in condoning delay is one of the guiding principles in the realm of belated appeals, but liberal approach cannot be equated with a licence to file appeals at will-disregarding the time limits fixed by the statutes.
In view of above order and respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), we decide Ground No.2 of the appeal in favour of assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the income arising from transaction in derivative by assessee(s), being sub-account FII cannot be treated as business profit or loss.
Income Tax Officer being a quasi judicial authority should observed the parameters which are laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in various decisions and reasserted in the case of UTI Mutual Fund Vs ITO (supra) for recovery of outstanding demands.
Assessee as well as his counsels have done lackluster attempt to represent the matters by not fulfilling all the criterion necessary to represent the matter before the Tribunal
The principal issue involved is taxability or otherwise of sums received by the assessee, a residential housing co-operative society, by way of transfer fee and TDR premium.
