Section 14A contains the expression ‘in relation to income which does not form part of the total income’. The said decision cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed u/s 14A.
The Tribunal granted 100 percent stay of demand because (a) the assessed income was more than 10 times the returned income. (Instruction 96 of 1969 was relied upon) & (b) The stand taken by the AO was at variance with the stand taken by TPO.
The entire role of the assessee and the activity performed by him for which he was remunerated, have a direct and proximate link with the game of cricket. In the given facts of this case, one cannot visualise earning of this income, de-horse the assessee having been a cricketer and a sportsman and nor can it be visualised independent of the game of cricket.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Reliance Wellness Ltd. vs. DCIT that treatment given in the books of account is not relevant to examine the claim put forth by the assessee. In this case Assessee was in the process of expansion of its business operations by opening various new shops
For invoking provisions of section 69A assessee should be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable articles. In this case of assessee he was not found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable articles.
Grant of tenancy rights by the assessee trust and the premium of Rs.51.00 lakhs received in lieu thereof from the tenants is a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and is therefore liable for capital gains and is not advance rent exigible to tax under the head income from house property.
Only those payments, which have been made by the assessee for any purpose which is an ‘offence’ or which is ‘prohibited by law’, shall alone would be hit by the explanation to section 37
The assessee cannot be said to have paid the consideration for use of or the right to use copyright but has simply purchased the copyrighted work embedded in the CD- ROM which can be said to be sale of ‘good’ by the owner.
The AO has not given his findings, for levying the penalty, for each issue separately, with respect to the satisfaction of the AO for each of the issue respectively, nor has he given a finding for each issue separately as to whether there was a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
AO has not made any enquiry with respect to the claim of deduction of the assessee company with respect to provisions for warranty charges, excise duty, sales tax and liquidity damages amounting to Rs.17.72 crores.
