Various objections raised by AO as mentioned above have been verified by ld. CIT(A) and found that land and building and machineries are new. Capitals introduced by the Directors are from their own sources and not by transferring from M/s. Shagun. Out of 70 employees employed by assessee company, only 8 employees were related to M/s Shagun and this is not a reason that for employing the ex-employees of any other company curtails the benefit allowable to the assessee.
It is noticed that the appellant-assess sold the agricultural land, which was mutated in his name, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,61,09,100/-. Thereafter out of the selling price, the appellant-assessee purchased land in the name of his son and daughter-in-law for a total consideration of Rs. 1,22,71,440/-. It is relevant to note that the land sold was in the name of appellant-assessee, while the land purchased was in the name of his son and daughter-in-law.7. A bare reading of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act does not suggest that assessee would be entitled to get exemption for the land purchased by him in the name of his son and daughter-in-law.
The only dispute by the Revenue is that the amount of remuneration has not been quantified in the partnership deed. It is mentioned in clause 8 of the partnership deed that remuneration will be payable as per norms fixed by the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. Thus the quantification of the remuneration is apparent from the clause 8 of the partnership deed.
In the instant case, the questions as to whether the assessee was entitled to get the current year depreciation even if it had not been claimed; or as to whether amendment to section 32 in year 2002-03 had a prospective effect or a retrospective effect on the application of current year’s depreciation and unabsorbed business losses and depreciation for the purpose of computation of Income tax, had been the disputable issues and had been of such questions of law which required further deliberation and discussion. Such aspects did not fall in the category of mistake apparent from the record and, therefore, could not have been dealt with under section 154.
CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Amendment in the clause (a) of section 251(1) has been made so as to provide that the Commissioner (Appeals) may not set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment with a view to help bringing an early finalization of the assessment, it cannot be assumed that the Commissioner (Appeals) is divested of the power to annul the assessment and then to pass appropriate consequential order. In the instant case, the factual aspect has been that the order as passed by the Assessing Officer which was subject of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), was not an original order of assessment but was an order of assessment passed after remand by the Tribunal. The directions in remand order having not been complied with, the course as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be said to be de hors the powers available to him under the statute.
Ordinarily, it is not incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to adjourn the case again when a last opportunity had already been granted to the Counsel for assessee, however, there may be number of circumstances where adjournment becomes necessary, in the interest of justice.
In view of various decision of Supreme Court it cannot be accepted that Union of India has no authority or power to levy service tax on renting of immovable property. The imposition of service tax on renting of immovable property was within the legislative competence of the Parliament and it does not fall within the legislative competence of the State under entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
The appellate authorities have taken the view, and do not appear unjustified in doing so, that with the basic facts having been divulged and established by the assessee with furnishing of necessary details, it was for the Assessing Officer to establish that the details were false or incorrect and the additions could not have been made merely on generalized observations or on suspicion. In an overall view of the matter, it is found that the finding of facts have been rendered by the appellate authorities on the relevant considerations after due examination of record and do not appear suffering from perversity.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (Jodhpur High Court) – Court is of the opinion that even though in the era of E-filing of the returns under the various laws, such a practice deserves to be encouraged and is acceptable form of filing of returns to the various Tax Department, it is admitted position before this Court that relevant Rules for filing of soft copies of these returns viz. VAT-07, VAT-08 and VAT-9, particularly assessment year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were not available on the statue book on the date when they were filed. In the present case, as aforesaid, the relevant amendments in Rule 19 and 1 9A reproduced above were brought w.e.f. 20.11.2007 and 29.8.2008 respectively. The notification Annex.10 placed on record also permits only a particular class of dealers to file such returns electronically. The notification dtd.27.2.2009 was given immediate effect and the date admittedly fell after relevant dates of filing of soft copy in the present case viz. On 16.10.2006, 30.11.2006, 28.2.2007 and 31.5.2007 respectively.
Maheshwari Agro Industries Vs. UOI (Rajasthan HC) – the income assessed by the Assessing Officer is almost 47 times of the income declared by the assessee viz. Rs. 1,44,42,320/- against the declared income of Rs.3,48,140/-. The disputed demand of tax also would be almost the same multiples of the declared and admitted tax liability or may be more because of interest and penalties.
