Shri. Satish Chandra, former ITAT Member, was appointed judge of the Allahabad High Court on 6.8.2008. The appointment was challenged on the ground that he had not practiced for even a day as an advocate and that he was not eligible for appointment under Article 217(2) and Article 217(1) of the Constitution. It was also alleged that the mandatory process of consultation under the Constitution had not been followed.
The assessee purchased bottles and crates costing less than Rs. 5,000/- and was allowed 100% depreciation thereon u/s 32 (1) (ii). When the bottles and crates got worn out, they were sold by the assessee. The question arose whether the said sale proceeds were assessable to tax. Prior to AY 1988-89, the sale proceeds would have been assessable as a “balancing charge” u/s 41 (2)
With regard to the question as to whether Panna Bai was the benamidar of Dwarka Prasad Agarwala or not, the TRO, held that without doubt the transaction was benami and the real owner of the property at 13,Kalipukur Lane (Road), Sheoraphully, Hooghly, was Dwarka Prasad Agarwala and Panna Bai, wife of Dwarka Das Agarwala, was the ostensible fictitious owner.
9. I have gone through the records carefully and I am unable to find any reason for making addition in the hands of the assessee. The addition is based upon the search proceedings and seizure that took place in the case of Narendra Kumar Paraswani not in the hands of the firm. Even the statement that were recorded have not implicated the assessee in any manner
The Allahabad High Court also denied the credit of alleged purchases in Shri Ganesha Rice Mills by stating `So far as the question of deduction of purchases from the corresponding sales are concerned, we may mention that the applicant being a manufacturer of Chuni-Bhusi and purchases having been found to be bogus and there is no other purchases of Chuni-Bhusi, the benefit of deduction of such purchases has rightly been disallowed
Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that assessee, a non-resident foreign company, engaged in the business of providing services in connection with extraction and production of mineral oils, submitted its return of income declaring income at Rs. 2,11,79,270/ – for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
20. It seems to us that the revenue functions in the same manner as other departments of administration, wherein the accepted norm is, to shift the responsibility of decision making to the judiciary. In sum and substance, the judiciary not only adjudicates upon legitimate controversies between quarreling parties, but also discharges the executive function of decision making
In ACIT Vs Rogini Garments108 ITD 49 the Special Bench at Chennai held that relief allowed u/s 80-IA had to be deducted from profits and gains of assessee’s business on which relief u/s 80HHC of the Act is to be computed. Subsequently, the Madras High Court in SCM Creations 304 ITR 319 took a contrary view. The question whether Rogini Garments was impliedly overruled was referred
In Asstt. CIT v. Suman Construction (2009) 27 (II) ITCL 329 (Pune ‘A’-Trib) the assessing officer had noticed that the assessee had claimed salary to partners of Rs. 2,20,000. However, in his opinion as per the partnership deed filed along with the return in the past assessment year, there was no specification of this salary payable to the partners.
5. The assessee was subjected to search assessment, whereupon additions were made, which included disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.54,1800/- ; addition for unexplained cash credit Rs.10,500/-, and another disallowance of claim of set off of business loss Rs.18,698/-; totalling Rs.83,378/-. The assessee contended before the AO that the disallowance of interest expenditure on bank loan was only a technical addition
