In our-view, the receipts do satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 80R that the services are rendered in his capacity as a teacher or research worker in such Institution, Association of Body. The amounts are not his professional receipts as he has no permission to practise in a foreign country.
The claim of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied merely based on the flimsy grounds that the assessee serves alcohol to the members and their friends in the club. Serving alcohol is part and parcel of the activities of any club and it is an integral part of the activities of the club.
The dispute raised in this appeal is whether F & O transaction can be considered as speculative transaction or not. The speculative transactions have been defined in section 43(5) as transactions in which contract for purchase or sale of any commodity including stock of shares is periodically and ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of commodity or scrips.
PICK-UP and drop transport facility provided by employers is not a perquisite and hence not liable to tax, according to a recent ruling by a tax tribunal. In a decision that has implications for the sectors such as BPO and IT, the Mumbai Income-Tax Apellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that companies providing such a facility were not liable to deduct tax on the expenditure incurred on it.
The entire focus in the present appeal is to decide whether the returns filed by the assessee were valid or invalid or defective. Whereas the AO, on observing that the return was not properly verified in as much as it was not signed by the right person, declared it to be invalid and non-est. He further intimated the assessee vide para 5 of his communication dated 11.1.2000 that the act of wrong verification is not a rectifiable defect u/s 139(9) which provides that removal of any defect of a valid return of income.
The assessee, an employee of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) India, received from J&J, USA, on 12.7.1989 a “cashless” option to buy 2500 shares at the then prevailing market price of $ 57.88 per share. The options were exercisable in installments over 10 years starting 11.7.1991. On 13.8.1992 (AY 1993-94), the assessee ‘sold’ the options and made a gain of Rs. 5,44,925
We have the rival submissions and perused the records. During the year under consideration the assessee society had claimed as exempt a sum or Rs. 10.00 Lakhs received on account of damages for wrongful proceedings against the society taken up before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society. Mr. Manojkumar Goswami & Mrs. Shashi Goswami
The revision u/s. 263 is not like the reopening of the assessment where once the assessment is reopened entire assessment is open before the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered in accordance with law. In the revision proceedings, the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show cause notice.
The provisions of the section contemplate to rectify any mistake apparent from record and non-consideration of any argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment and the same cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497,502 (Bom).
Section 32 of the Income Tax Act allows depreciation on both tangible and intangible assets and clause [ii] thereof enumerates the intangible assets on which depreciation is allowable. The assets which are included in the definition of `intangible assets’ given in clause [ii] are know-how, patents, copy rights, trademarks, licenses, franchises etc.,
