The Proviso to s. 10A(1A) provides that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to an assessee who does not furnish a return of his income on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1). The assessee’s argument that the said Proviso is merely directory and not mandatory is not acceptable.
A very heavy onus is placed on the assessee to explain the difference between the assessed income and returned income and the assessee in the instant case did not discharge the said onus. In the light of the discussion made above and conduct of the assessee, it is thus clear that all the material facts and particulars relating to the assessee’s computation of income were never disclosed by the assessee,
Under the scheme, announced in the 2012-13 Union Budget, new investors can avail tax benefits who invest up to Rs. 50,000 in the stock market and whose gross total annual income is less than or equal to Rs. 10 lakh. The scheme was notified by the Department of Revenue, Finance Ministry on November 23 this year.
There is no dispute on the fact of delay of 1529 days as well as on non-furnishing of any affidavit by the Counsels affirming that assessee had a conference with the Counsels which give raise to the necessity of filing the impugned cross objections. Further, there is no explanation as to why and under what circumstances, the assessee approached the Counsels on 26-12-2008 only and not within 30 days from the receipt of the notice.
There is no quarrel on the point that the assessee, being an insurance company is not required to prepare its accounts as per Parts II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Sub-section (2) of section 211 are required every profit and loss accounts of the Companies shall be prepared as per the requirement of Part II of Schedule VI.
In all foreign countries operation was carried out through assessee’s branches which was a permanent establishment situated outside India. Hence, the income attributable to these branches cannot be taxed in India. This issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee by Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1997-98. Therefore, appeal filed by the department was to be dismissed.
Those who had paid tax as per the provisions and classification existing prior to 1-6-2007 and those who opted for payment of tax under the provisions of rule 3 ibid and paid tax after exercising the option belonged to different classes and, therefore, the impugned circular or the provisions of rule 3(3) ibid were not discriminatory.
Neither section 529 nor section 529A of the Act mandate that to claim priority and preferential payment under section 529A the secured creditors must join winding up and cannot stand outside the winding up and/or it must relinquish its security.
From such exchange of information between the Assessing Officer and the assessee, we need to gather whether the question of taxability of a receipt of Rs. 5,56,000/- from the members by the petitioner was under consideration by the Assessing Officer.
In the case of ITO v. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 486 (Ahd) it has been held that provisions of Sec.50C are applicable only for computation of capital gains in real estate transaction in respect of seller only and not for the purchaser.
