7. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant orders of the revenue authorities, the orders of the Tribunal as in quantum appeals, write-ups and the details relating to the investigations undertaken by the AO during the set aside proceedings referred to in the said orders. Factually, the assessee is a Cable Work Contractor and executed various contracts in the names of various concerns
10. The scope of gifts and the existing areas of controversies in regard to them are relevant issues here. Generally, the gifts may involve biological relatives, sociologically connected or unconnected persons, politically or spiritually reverend individuals etc. In the cases, where the gifts involve the biological relatives, the giving gifts are normally conventional, traditional or a social practice and the motive
8. We have considered he submissions made by both the sides, material on record and orders of the authorities below. We find that the question, before US, is whether limited scrutiny proceedings and regular scrutiny proceedings are independent of each other or not and, therefore, notice issued for limited scrutiny into a regular scrutiny where time to issue notice u/s 143(2)(ii) has expired or not
Where the assessee suo motu filed returns as “agent” of a non-resident but no assessment was made and after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year a notice under section 148 of the Act seeking to assess the income and the question arose whether the said notice was barred by limitation u/s 149 (3), HELD:
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record o the case. The short dispute is whether the anticipated loss on the valuation of fixed price contract, in view of the mandatory requirements of AS-7, is to be allowed in the year in which the contract has been entered into or it is to be spread over a period of contract, as was done by the assessee in earlier years
19. We have given careful thought to the rival submissions of the parties and examined them in the light of material available on record, statutory provisions and case law cited at the Bar. At the very outset, we may state that the basic contention of the assessee that he is and should be considered as an agent under clauses (a), (b) & (c) u/s 163(1) of the Act, is misplaced
6. Section 54EC provides that where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long term capital asset and the assessee has at any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer, invested the whole or any part of capital gains in the long term specified asset, the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this section, that is to say, if the cost of the long term specified asset
30. In our opinion, the assessee must succeed on his Ground. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee being an employer made the valuation of the perquisite provided to Mr. Brian Brown at Rs. 90,40,880/-. The definition of the salary is given in section 17 of the Act and as per the said definition salary includes perquisites. The perquisites in its normal meaning means direct and indirect benefits
Where during a survey, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 29 lakhs towards “any other discrepancy” but later retracted from the same and the question arose whether the assessee could be assessed despite the said retraction,
7. Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully. The question for our consideration is whether the income accruing to the assessee should be assessed as `business income’ as claimed by the assessee or partly as `income from house property’ and partly as `income from other sources’ as held by the Assessing Officer Officer. At the outset, we may mention that the Assessing Officer has committed
