The burden is on the assessees to show that the amount received by purported gift(s) from the two donors was a gift in the legal sense. Assessees have not led evidence to show whether the alleged donors had adequate funds in their respective accounts to make these purported gift(s) in Singapore Dollars, which is almost running into more than five lakhs.
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Department to reduce 90% of the net commission received by the assessee from the profits of the business for computation of deduction under Section 80HHF of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
On going through the impugned Order of the High Court, we find that no reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the re-opening of assessment. In the circumstances, the impugned Order of the High Court dated 23rd December, 2011, in Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
We have found that the procedure laid down under Section 29 of SFC Act has been followed by the Corporations. The independent valuer submitted his report on 17.09.2010 and the off-set price of the unit was fixed after getting it valued by an independent valuer. It was based upon the valuation report that the off-set price of the unit was fixed at Rs.1,77,45,000/- on 17.09.2010.
It is true that the appellants had obtained encumbrances certificates from the Sub-Registrar prior to purchase which show that there were no encumbrances to the subject flat. It is also true that the appellants had obtained loan from Vijaya Bank, Brigade Road Branch, Bangalore for purchase of the said flat.
High Court has stated that cash flow statements submitted by the assessee were not supported by documents. If so, the High Court should have remitted the case to CIT(A) giving opportunity to the assessee to produce relevant documents.
On going through the records, we find that the assessee Company has been following the net method for valuing the closing stock. It includes excise duty at the time of removal of goods. Following the order of this Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 331 (SC), this civil appeal filed by the Department is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The decision in K.K. Baskaran’s case (supra) so far as it relates to protection of interests of depositors, cannot be ignored. In our view the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in K.K. Baskaran’s case (supra) would be equally applicable to the facts of this case.
A short question which arises for determination in this appeal is, whether the Department is entitled to charge interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the assessee bringing forward the tax credit balance into the year of account relevant to Assessment Year 2001-2002?
To justify the forfeiture of advance money being part of ‘earnest money’ the terms of the contract should be clear and explicit. Earnest money is paid or given at the time when the contract is entered into and, as a pledge for its due performance by the depositor to be forfeited in case of non-performance, by the depositor.
