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
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the mpugned order, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal. It is the conceded position that in the assessee’s balance sheet, the aforesaid liabilities have been shown, which are payable to the sundry creditors. Such liabilities, shown in the balance sheet, indicate the acknowledgment of the debts payable by the assessee. Merely because such liability is outstanding for the last six years, it cannot be presumed that the said liabilities have ceased to exist. It is also conceded position that there is no bilateral act of the
CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Disallowance under Section 14A requires finding of incurring of expenditure where it is found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred, disallowance under Section 14A cannot stand.
The assessee earned dividend income on shares which was exempt from tax. The AO took the view that the investment in shares was made out of borrowed funds on which interest expenditure was incurred and consequently made a disallowance u/s 14A. This was partly upheld by the CIT (A). On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance by noting that the assessee had proved that the investment in shares was made out of non-interest bearing funds.
The Assessing officer initiated proceedings for alleged violation of section 269SS of the Act in as much as the assessee accepted share application money being Rs.20,000/- in cash. Thereafter, penalty was imposed. On appeal, CIT(A) upheld the stand of the assessee that the amount received
