We see no error in the observation made by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgement that once limitation period of four years provided under Section 147/149(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [for short, `the Act’] expires then the question of reopening by the Department does not arise.
On going through the records, we find that an important query was raised by the Department as to whether these two donors had the financial capacity to make the gift(s) in favour of the assessees herein. This query has not at all been answered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’, for short].
The case of the revenue is that section 234D as introduced on 1st June, 2003 was retrospective in operation by necessary implication. However, as doubts were raised about its retrospectivity, the same was clarified by adding an explanation to section 234D by Finance Act, 2012.
The issue arising in this case stand covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra).The decision of this court in the matter of Solid Containers (supra) is on completely different facts and inapplicable to this case. In the matter of Solid Containers (supra) the assessee therein had taken a loan for business purpose.
It is an accepted position of law that the re-valuation of assets in the books of the assessee does not lead to generation of income as no transaction has been taken up with an outside party. In other words, a person cannot make profit from himself by merely making some entries in the books of account.
There is nothing in the said section to treat, inter alia, the assessee as defaulter where there is a shortfall in deduction. With regard to the shortfall, it cannot be assumed that there is a default as the deduction is not as required by or under the Act, but the facts is that this expression, ‘on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139’.
Where a foreign company gives a technical know-how and obtains equity shares in the new company, the amount attributable to technical know-how was not revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. However, it was treated to be of capital nature.
The petitioner is a share broker. A survey was conducted under Section 133-A of the Act on 24.4.2001 in which a large number of incriminating documents were found. The AO proceeded to make enquiries in which it was found that there were serious defects in the books of accounts. Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal-the Director had created large number of fictitious concerns, which were not doing any business. In the circumstances the AO completed the assessment on protective basis.
A short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals is, whether texturing and twisting of polyester yarn amount to ‘manufacture’ for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This question has been squarely answered by this Court in the case of CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn (P.) Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 188.
The adjudicating Commissioner has also taken objection to the fact that the refunds have been made by way of credit and not by issue of cheques. In this respect, we note that a large number of transactions are involved and the industry practice is to make refunds by way of book adjustment allowing credit
