8. We have considered he submissions made by both the sides, material on record and orders of the authorities below. We find that the question, before US, is whether limited scrutiny proceedings and regular scrutiny proceedings are independent of each other or not and, therefore, notice issued for limited scrutiny into a regular scrutiny where time to issue notice u/s 143(2)(ii) has expired or not
In connection with search and seizure operations against the R group of companies, the Commissioner of Income-tax after hearing the assessees passed a reasoned order directing transfer of the cases of the assessees from the Income-tax Officers at Kolkata to Patna.
Where the assessee suo motu filed returns as “agent” of a non-resident but no assessment was made and after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year a notice under section 148 of the Act seeking to assess the income and the question arose whether the said notice was barred by limitation u/s 149 (3), HELD:
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record o the case. The short dispute is whether the anticipated loss on the valuation of fixed price contract, in view of the mandatory requirements of AS-7, is to be allowed in the year in which the contract has been entered into or it is to be spread over a period of contract, as was done by the assessee in earlier years
Where the assessee entered into a ‘secondment agreement’ with a US Company and obtained the services of an employee and the question arose whether the reimbursement by the assessee to the US Company of the salary paid by the US Company was chargeable to tax as “fees for technical services” HELD:
Where the assessee entered into an agreement with the Vidharbha Irrigation department for supply, erection and installation of dam gates and the question arose whether it was “developing an infrastructural facility” so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA (4) or it was a mere contractor, HELD:
In terms of the Board’s clarification dated 28-2-2006, the service rendered namely outsourcing of spot billing work by APCPDCL would come within the ambit of business support service which is liable to service tax only with effect from 2006.
7. It is the first contention of the appellant that the amount in issue is not an income within the definition of the term `income’ set out in section 2(24) of the said Act. We are unable to accept this contention of the appellant and we agree with the findings rendered in this regard by all the lower authorities, including the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its impugned order dated 26th July, 2006
19. We have given careful thought to the rival submissions of the parties and examined them in the light of material available on record, statutory provisions and case law cited at the Bar. At the very outset, we may state that the basic contention of the assessee that he is and should be considered as an agent under clauses (a), (b) & (c) u/s 163(1) of the Act, is misplaced
6. Section 54EC provides that where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long term capital asset and the assessee has at any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer, invested the whole or any part of capital gains in the long term specified asset, the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this section, that is to say, if the cost of the long term specified asset
