In order to assess individuals to be forming association of persons, the individual co-owners should have joined their resources and thereafter acquired property in the name of association of persons and the property should have been commonly managed, only then it could be assessed in the hands of associations of persons. Conversely, the mere accruing of income jointly to more persons than one would not constitute thereon an association of persons in respect of such income.
Section 44AB of the Act becomes operative where there is computation of profits and gains of business or profession as a part of total income. In other words, it has no applicability where the assessee is not involved in or has no income from profits and gains from business or profession.
The assessee was not able to offer any plausible explanation for the sum of Rs.30,40,000/- which was surrendered by the assessee. Further, during the course of survey, it was found that certain sale invoices were either not recorded in the books of account or were under invoiced.
In the instant case, in order to examine the entitlement of the assessee for exemption under section 54, it is to be seen whether the assessee had constructed residential house within three years of the transfer of his property. For doing so, the meaning of the term ‘house’ is to be explored. The term ‘house’ has not been given any statutory definition and, thus, has to be assigned meaning as understood in common parlance. As per dictionary, it means abode, a dwelling place or building for human habitation. A building, in order to be habitable by a human being, is ordinarily required to have minimum facilities of washroom, kitchen, electricity, sewerage, etc.
The assessee has followed mercantile system of accountancy in regard to the expenditure incurred during that year and results were declared on actual receipt and this method is constantly followed by the assessee since last so many years, therefore, addition of the amount received in the next year in the month of April should not have been added in the previous year merely on the basis of bills issued and expenditure shown in the assessment year.
It is not in public interest to accept such a claim when there is no evidence of rendering any service by Blue Chip & Co to the assessee. The sole object of diverting funds to Blue Chip & Co was to facilitate passing of funds as interest free loan to Vijay Mallya and Samira Mallya.
J.R. Solvent Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT Section 145 deals with method of accounting. However, under section 145(2) where the Income-tax Officer is not satisfied about the ‘correctness’ or ‘completeness’ of the accounts of the assessee or where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by the assessee then the Income-tax Officer may make best judgment assessment as contemplated by section 144.
Commercial vehicle is to include heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle but is not to include maxi-cab, motor-cab, tractor and road-roller. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration is whether Tippers, Vibrator and Vibrator Soil Compactor would be covered by the expression ‘commercial vehicle’ or such vehicles have to be regarded as plant and machinery to attract less percentage of depreciation. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal would not suffer from any legal infirmity because the Tippers are registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the 1988 Act’) as road transport vehicle as would be vibrator and vibrator soil compactor.
Whether assessing Officer has jurisdiction to rectify the original assessment u/s 154 of the Act, as it was change of opinion and the review of order passed by his predecessor was not permissible under law. Held – That assessing officer has a power to rectify the assessment by invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. The rate of depreciation claimed by the assessee on trucks at 40% was wrongly allowed as the assessee was not plying trucks owned by it on hire but was utilizing the trucks for its own purposes and hence rate of depreciation applicable was 25%.
‘Whether the revival scheme submitted by the petitioner under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and accepted by Court amounts to compounding with the principal debtor leading to the discharge of the surety within the meaning of sections 134 and 135 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
