The taxpayer, Porrits & Spencers (Asia) Limited, is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is in the business of manufacturing of engineered fabrics and industrial textiles. During the financial year 1990-91 it purchased, on credit, 2.5 million units ofUS64 (the units) of Unit Trust of India (UTI ) on 21 May 1990 at the prevailing market rate of Rs. 15 per unit. As per the certificate issued by UTI, such units were transferred to the taxpayer on 30 May 1990. The taxpayer received a dividend of Rs. 4.5 million on the said units on 6 July 1990.
Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the transactions for purchase and sale of 25 lacs units called `US-64′ of the assessee with the Bank, after holding that those transactions were genuine, were (a) not bona fide transactions, (b) entered into with a motive to avoid liability for tax etc.
The perusal of the scheme of the Act posits that it is not always that any building or land appurtenant thereto are straightway liable to wealth tax. There are many exceptions contained in section 2(ea)(i)of the Act in this respect, such as ,house meant exclusively for residential or commercial purposes, which forms part of the stock in-trade or any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him or any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes etc.
The photography films, printing papers, chemicals and envelopes are the integral and essential ingredients to complete the process of photography. Meaning thereby, the components of sale of photography, developing and printing etc. are clearly distinct and discernible than that of photography service. Therefore, we are of the view that as the photography
We have prefaced the discussion on provisos with the object of putting the real controversy in its true perspective. The orders passed by the Chief Commissioner are identical in all these cases and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the following substantive questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:
S. 10(23C)(vi) provides that the income of any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit shall be exempt. The assessee was running a school solely for educational purposes and claimed exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi).
CIT v. Bhagwati Steels -(Punjab & Haryana HC) -In the instant case, it was held that the payment of freight charges by the assessee to the truck drivers was based on individual GRs which represented individual and separate contracts and there was no single contract for carriage or transportation of goods referred to between assessee and the impugned parties which would make the assessee liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Act.
In order to appreciate the controversy few facts may be noticed. The assessee-company is manufacturing colour picture tubes. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05 the assessee company incurred expenditure for the purpose of restructuring. The assessee-company had become a sick unit and in that regard a reference was made to BIFER for its rehabilitation
In respect of the question concerning distance of the agricultural land from the municipal limits of city of Khanna the Tribunal has decided the issue holding that distance of 2 kms.from the municipal limits of city of Khanna has to be reckoned for the purposes of Section 2(14)(iii)of the Act by measuring the same as per the road distance and not as per straight line distance on a horizontal plane or as per crow’s flight
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. As far as the addition of Rs. 3,30,000 is concerned, it has been held that during the proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 250 of the Act, the assessee furnished a confirmation certificate from M/s Axis Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Faridabad along with PAN number. On asking of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has confirmed that the said liability is still outstanding. In spite of that material, the Assessing Officer made the addition of the amount on the basis that this liability has ceased to exist and the same is not payable by the assessee, and treated the said liability as income by invoking provision of Section 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), whil
