The issue involved in these appeals is, whether leasing rights can be considered to be ‘goods’ and whether transfer of such rights would constitute sale?” This issue is answered in favour of the assessee in the case of CIT v. B. Suresh [2009] 313 ITR 149. Following the said decision, these civil appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
The question involved in this appeal is, whether excise duty and sales tax need to be included in the total turnover in the formula – ‘Business income’ multiplied by ‘export turnover’ and divided by ‘total turnover’ in Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
It is to be noted that in the instant case what has been transferred by the assessee is the tenancy right which is very much part of the capital asset as envisaged in sub-section (2)(a) of section 55. Sub-section (2)(a) of section 55 stipulates that cost of acquisition in relation to asset, inter alia, tenancy rights not falling under sub-clause (1)(iv) of sub-section (1) of section 49 shall be taken to be nil.
In large number of cases, we find a peculiar phenomenon. In cases, where huge revenue/demand from the Department is involved, invariably, there is inordinate delay in filing appeals before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in filing special leave petitions before this Court.
No doubt, payment of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory but it is for the Assessing Authority while passing the original assessment order or while passing the reassessment or rectification order to direct payment of interest.
Power to rectify an order, under Section 254 (2) is extremely limited. It does not extend to correcting errors of law, or re-appreciating factual findings. Those, properly fall within appellate review of an order of court of first instance. What legitimately falls for consideration are errors (mistakes) apparent from the record.
On the perusal of trust deed, it would be clear that trust was created wholly for a particular purpose and religious community i.e. Hindu and not for charitable purposes and thus, it contravenes the conditions laid down in section 80G(5) (iii) read with Explanation 3.
In ‘Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.’ (supra), the assessee had claimed higher depreciation @ 40% during the assessment proceedings, as against @ 20% in the tax audit report. The Tribunal held that the claim of higher depreciation in the assessment proceedings could not be termed as a new claim and that Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was only in respect of a new claim made in the assessment proceedings and not modification of claim.
In the instant case, the search took place in the year 2002 and, therefore, the instant case is governed by Chapter XIV-B. Section 158BB of Chapter XIV-B deals with computation of undisclosed income of the block period.
The assessee herein sought for withdrawal of the appeal to go before the Settlement Commission, which dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no appeal pending, a mandatory requirement as on the date of taking up a required application.
