Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Sub-section (1) of Section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8% of the gross receipts paid or payable to the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or a sum higher than the aforesaid sum as may be declared by the assessee in his return of income notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43C of the Act. This income is to be deemed to be the profits and gains of said business chargeable of tax under the head “profits and gains” of business. However, the said provisions are applicable where the gross receipts paid or payable does not exceed Rs.40 lacs.
As soon as the land of the assessee is requisitioned and stood vested in the State, he does not remain its owner and the mere inchoate right to receive the enhanced compensation cannot possibly be treated as assets and included in his wealth subsequently.
We do not find that on all the four counts, demand was raised on the ground of clearance of goods with intent to evade payment of duty. Demand relating to third count and relating to samples was clearly demand on account of legal issues so it cannot be held that there was intention to evade payment of duty. So penalty in respect of these two counts is not sustainable.
Merely because the Motor Vehicles Act provides for granting of tourist permit, it would not automatically mean that section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 also contemplates only a tourist permit and not otherwise; if the vehicle is used for providing transport service then it will amount to providing taxable service under the Finance Act.
The assessee purchased US-64 Units of the UTI in May 1990 for Rs. 3.75 crs, received dividend thereon of Rs. 45 lakhs and sold the units in July 1990 for Rs. 3.25 crs. The assessee claimed that deduction u/s 80M was available on the dividend and that a short-term capital loss of Rs. 51.61 lakhs on purchase and sale of units was allowable.
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:
