When the bona fideof the transaction and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been suspected, then for the purpose of computation of capital gains, the full value of consideration can not be substituted by market price or value of the capital asset as on the date of transfer.
Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that insofar as the second reason is concerned, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings with a view to ‘examine’ whether the assessee had accumulated reserve. Obviously, the scope of section 147 cannot encompass such an action under which certain examination is to be conducted for forming a reason to believe as to the escapement of income.
There is no dispute that the assessee is maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. investment portfolio and trading portfolio. The A.O. has admitted the said position consistently in the past. It is pointed out that the shares in question which are subject matter of short term capital gain and long term capital gain are part of the investment port folios and were not part of the trading portfolio.
A simple reading of this section suggests that in case of set off of business loss vis-a-vis depreciation, the first preference shall be given to the business loss as per the provisions of Sec. 72(1) of the Act for the simple reason that the business loss can be carried forward only upto 8 assessment years whereas the depreciation can be carried over upto unlimited period.
The duty imposed by the Act upon the tax payer is to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for the assessee ; he is not required to inform the Income-tax Officer as to what legal inference should be drawn from the facts disclosed by him nor to advise him on questions of law. Whether on the facts found or disclosed, the company was a dealer in shares, may be regarded as a conclusion on a mixed question of law and fact and from the failure on the part of the company to disclose to the Income-tax Officer this legal inference, no fault may be found with the company
Right or property in respect of which the shipping income is earned by the assessee i.e. ships cannot be said to be effectively connected with the permanent establishment in India . Such income, therefore, will not fall under Article 22(2) but will fall under Article 22(1) and accordingly shall be taxable only in the State of residence of the assessee company i.e. Switzerland and not in India.
The main issue, in the present case, revolves around the inclusion and exclusion of the various comparable companies by the assessee as well as by the TPO by applying different filtration criteria in search for the comparable companies. The assessee has adopted the criteria of filtration for search of the companies having sales trading less than 90% of the gross sales,
It is evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the claim of cost of production of film was a subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) after consideration of remand report of the AO gave his finding. Therefore, this order of the AO, undisputedly had merged with the order of the ld. CIT(A) as far as the claim of cost of production of film is concerned.
Duration in respect of first contract is only 8 months and 11 days, which is less than 9 months as per Article 5 of the Indo-Mauritius DTAA to constitute permanent establishment. The duration of second contract as per the above table is only 10 days and the third contract is 3 months and 14 days. Patently such duration is less than the prescribed period of 9 months.
Tribunal held that in the absence of any material brought by the revenue authorities that the assessee has received amount more than the professional fees which has been declared by him in the P&L account and when the professional income declared by the assessee far exceeds the professional fees shown in the AIR information, then additions solely based on the AIR information are not sustainable.
