CIT (Appeals) has inferred of the hotel/s, where the assessee’s employees stayed, as also serving as their work place. The communications between them and the head office, which is again a part of their work, has again admittedly been carried out in India and, as stated
Moot point arising in the instant case, not addressed by the first appellate authority, i.e., as what constitutes a ‘purchase’ for the purposes of section 54F or, for that matter, the other para materia provisions.
Clause (4) of Sec. 54 clearly mention that the amount of net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s. 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return (such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub section (1) of Sec. 139).
For the year under consideration the assessee has specifically raised a point before the AO that 97.82% of the investment is in the subsidiary companies and joint venture companies and, therefore, no expenditure was incurred for maintaining the portfolio on these investments
It is an admitted fact that the assessee has changed the method of depreciation from straight line method to written down value method. Deprecation has been calculated in accordance with the new method from the date of assets coming into use.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company.
It is a fact that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source of the amount found credited in the accounts of loan creditors as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarik Dwarikadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. (supra).
The Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has failed to determine the correctly the hawala Income. The appellant has issued Bills i.e. Sales Bills to the commercial world i.e. the needy persons. Who has paid the appellant the Hawala Commission.
The difference arises on two counts. Firstly, the date from which the period of six months is to be reckoned. While the assessee contends it to be as 10.03.2008, i.e., the date of receipt of the consideration for transfer (of the long term capital asset)
The issue – The principal; rather, the sole issue arising in the instant appeal; the assessee not pressing its ground no.1 assailing the impugned assessment on the question of jurisdiction (which we find to have been, though assumed, not pressed even before the first appellate authority, withdrawing the objection vide letter dated 07.01.2013)
