13. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as above cited judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co (India) Ltd (supra). The case of the assessee is that the said subscription of Rs 3 lakhs is wholly and exclusively for the business purpose. On the other hand, the case of the revenue is that the unlike in company
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Section 194C provides that “any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and …….(d) any company ……….. shall,
10. A plain reading of section 154 quoted above reveals that the Assessing Officer has to pass an order amending the assessment within the period of limitation as provided under sub-section (7) . Sub-section (3) of section 154 quoted above makes it obligatory upon the Assessing Officer to give a notice to the assessee and afford reasonable opportunity of being heard if the proposed amendment has the effect of enhancing an assessment
5. From the facts of this case, it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not laid down any universally applicable principle that income from immovable property, be invariably taxed under the head ‘Income from House Property’. It was on the consideration of the cumulative effect of all the factors prevailing in case, which have been noted above, that the income from immovable property was held to be taxable under this head
8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that there is no dispute about the fact that the payments in question were made by the assessee company in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- towards service charges to the crew. The dispute, however, is that whether the said payments were covered by the exceptions prescribed in Rule 6DD(j)
5. The assessee was subjected to search assessment, whereupon additions were made, which included disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.54,1800/- ; addition for unexplained cash credit Rs.10,500/-, and another disallowance of claim of set off of business loss Rs.18,698/-; totalling Rs.83,378/-. The assessee contended before the AO that the disallowance of interest expenditure on bank loan was only a technical addition
18. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders, decisions and judgments and provisions of the Income-tax Act. From the facts, it is noticed that the objection of the revenue is with regard to the assessee’s failure to follow the AS-15 and the ‘actuarial method’ referred therein and not disputed the quantification of the ‘provision of gratuity. In other words, the incorrect quantification of the provision
7. The scope of section 263 has been determined by the propositions pro-founded by the Hon’bie Apex Court as well as other courts. For the revenue, an incorrect assumption of fact, incorrect assumption of law, failure to or routinely to conduct investigation in to the issue together with the ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are the approved grounds for assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263
10. Section 194C relating to `payment to contractors and sub-contractors’ and relevant provisions read as under:- “194C(1)Any person responsibility for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and –
The contention of the assessee regarding allowability of foreseeable loss is accepted in principle, However, the issue is restored to the file of AO for the purpose of quantification and calculation of the said loss in terms of Accounting Standard -7, as the same has not been done.
