6.9 Right to review is a creature of statute as is right of appeal. The income-tax Act does not confer any power on the appellate authority, to review its own order. A review is not a substitute for an appeal, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Finance & Dairy Product (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Raj) 324; (1980) 125 ITR 404 (Raj). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Globe Transport Corporation
“37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid but or expended wholly and. exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession’.
Nicholas Applegate South East Asia Fund Limited Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) – The question of application of section 292B cannot be prejudged by finding that return, notice, etc. is not as per the requirement of the statute and is/are invalid; the finding that the return or notice etc. is invalid or to what extent it is invalid is unnecessary and counter productive; if in substance and in effect return, notice or assessment is in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of the Act, the mistake defect or omission is to be ignored as per the underlining philosophy of section 292B.
9.1 From plain reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is ` erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power.
13.5 That in the case of running contracts, no income, profits or gains can in fact be computed unless the contract is completed and if the contract is completed in a period of more than a year, the crucial time for calculating the income, profits and gains arrives only when the entire contract is completed in other words, argument was that the only method by which the gains or profits of the assessee could be determined was to wait until
15. As a general proposition, it can be said that the payment for impairment of income earning apparatus, sterilization of a source of income would generally fall in the category of capital receipts. Compensation received for undertaking restrictive covenants of not competing with the business also generally fall in the category of capital receipts. The exception being a case, where such covenants are normal incident of carrying on business
16. On the issue of applicability of section 28(iv) of the Act, we are however of the view that the same arises for consideration on the grounds raised in cross objection and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the same. We are of the view that provisions of section 28(iv) would not be attracted to a case of increase in capital of partners of a firm pursuant to revaluation of the assets of the firm. Under section 28 of the Act
10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The authorities below have not controverted the claim of the assessee company that the amount received from above three companies is inter-corporate deposits. The Assessing Officer held against the assessee only on account that it had failed to explain, the investment is neither loan or advance.
11. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties, material on record and orders of the authorities below. It is noted that the assessee is an individual and aged about 50 years. The assessee has income from salary and other sources both aggregating to Rs. 2.62 lakhs. It is also noted that the assessee was received salary from M/s Nav Bharat Education Society where he is working as a senior clerk
6. Having heard both the parties and having considered their rival contentions, we find that the only dispute before us is as to whether deduction u/s.10B is to be allowed prior to the set off of the depreciation allowance and whether the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years would form part of the current year’s depreciation. It is not in dispute that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.10B of the Income tax Act
