As the VDIS 1997 certificate issued by the department is valid and subsisting, it is not open to the revenue to contend that there was no jewellery which could be sold by the assessee on 20/1/1999.It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee continues to be in possession of the said diamond jewellery even after the alleged sale effected on 20-1-1999 or that the said jewellery has been sold to third parties.
The applicant maintains a `database’ which is located outside India and which contains the financial and economic information including fundamental data of a large number of companies world-wise. The customers of the applicant are mostly financial intermediaries and investment banks which have the need for such data. The databases contain the published information collated,
The assessee is engaged in rendering Business & Management Consultancy and Marketing Services to its various clients against payment of professional fees. The assessee invested Rs 2,00,00,000/ – in 14,38,848.929 units of Sun F &C fund. The dividend of Rs.43,16,546. 70 received on 22.02.2001 was also reinvested in 4,09,151.252 units of the said fund as per the scheme of reinvestment plan.
. Section 132(1) empowers the Director General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or any such Joint Director or Joint Commissioner, as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board to authorize Joint Director, Joint Commissioner or other lower authorities to conduct the search if the former authority has reason to believe that the case falls under clauses (a) to (c) of subsection (1).
The Division Bench in the facts of the case had held that there was absence of any material to show that generally there was a profit in the hospital activities of the petitioner therein. In this context, it was held that it cannot be said that the petitioner did not exist solely for philanthropic purpose but, for the purpose of profit and the rejection of the application of the petitioner therein was held not valid
CIT Vs. Indersons Leather P. Ltd. (P&H HC)- The assessee company, after discontinuing its manufacturing business, leased out its shed along with fittings and disclosed the income as income from business, whereas the Revenue contended that the same be assessed as “Income from house property. The issue under consideration is whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed in such a case. On this issue, the High Court observed that, mere raising of a debatable issue would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
The assessee, having been assessed to a loss of Rs. 9 crores, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. S. 253 (6) provides that if the assessed ‘total income’ is “less” than Rs. 1 lakh, a fee of Rs. 500 for filing the appeal is payable while if the income is “more”, a higher fee is payable subject to a maximum of Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal took the view that if the loss was more than Rs.1 lakh
Explanation to s. 37 (1) does not apply to “penalty” which is not of the nature of illegal / unlawful expenditure The assessee became liable to pay “penalty” for overloading wagons under the rules of the Railways. The question arose whether the said “penalty” was disallowable under the Explanation to s. 37 (1) which provides that
Expl. (baa) to S. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean the profits under the head “profits and gains” as reduced by 90% of the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid). The 2nd & 3rd Provisos to s. 80HHC (3) provide that the profits computed there under shall be increased by the said 90% amount computed in the proportion of export turnover
The assessee had borrowed funds for the purpose of investing in shares. The shares were held for capital purposes as well as for investment purposes. In AY 2004-2005, the assessee did not receive any dividend on the said shares and so there was no exempt income. The Special Bench had to consider whether the interest expenditure
