Ld.Counsel for the assessee Mr.Sandeep Sadra on the other hand pointed out that the assessee has made a fresh claim before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and as all the facts are on record and as the Assessing Officer has himself recorded that the claim is correct, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was right in allowing the claim.
Accrual (or otherwise) of an income (or expenditure) is matter of fact, to be decided separately for each case, on the basis of the assessment of the obtaining facts and circumstances. The same cannot be stated as an accounting policy – which by its very nature is to be applied uniformly,
Apex Court held that till the amendment in 1995, the compensation received on surrendering the tenancy rights could not be assessed to capital gains. Thus, on the fact position as found by the Tribunal and which form the very basis of the order under Section 263 that the assessee was treated as tenants as per the document dated 25.02.1994, the genuineness of which was never questioned by the Revenue, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, we reject the questions raised by the Revenue.
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.
