In the present case, admittedly the Assessment Year being 1988-89 and the search having taken place on 03.07.1987 the return of income was not due before 31.07.1988. Therefore, whether the income represented by the value of the asset was shown in the return of income or not became irrelevant once a declaration had been made about such income having not been disclosed
This appeal by the taxpayer for the AY 2004-05 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) partially setting aside assessment under Section 263 of IT. Act made vide order dated 30 March, 2005 with directions to the Assessing Officer for the fresh determination of Arm’s Length Price of international transaction with AEs in the light of his directions.
15. In so far as the assessee’s contention that as the remuneration paid to the directors were increased in a properly called meeting of the Board of Directors, such payment is to be considered as reasonable and not excessive, we are of the view that this contention of the assessee would be of no much assistance to the assessee as discussed hereafter. There is no dispute in the fact that the Board of Directors
Applications for compounding ought to be disallowed if there are such contradictions, inconsistencies or incompleteness. The reason is obvious. If the applicant is trying to hoodwink the Authority such applications would not be maintainable. That aspect is required to be kept in mind by the Compounding Authority. The test is as follows :
ANY business is a tricky ‘business’ for its doers ! It is tricky because of the presence of many parameters beyond the control of the doers. Under such circumstances, what is to be treated as normal expenditure of business is the sum of compensation which a business-doer has to incur as expenditure for paying damages in case of non-fulfilment of certain obligations under a contract. Now, the major question is whether such an expenditure can be treated as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business as mandated by the provision of the Sec 37(1) of the Income Tax Act?
ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – The grounds relating to levy of interest u/s. 234B has not been considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) . However, we are inclined to hold that levy of such interest is to be mandatorily levied in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the section, which the AO is directed to levy. The agitation with respect to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is premature and is dismissed as rightly not considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well.
Even a conjoint reading of Section 36(1)(iii) as existing prior to the proviso thereto and Section 43(1) explanation 8 clearly shows that any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the acquisition of an asset cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure. The capital might have been borrowed by an assessee for the purpose of business. However, once it is admitted that a part thereof was used by the assessee for the purpose of acquisition of an asset, which is not in the form of replacement or modernization the interest component thereon upto the date it is first put to use has to be dealt with in terms of provisions of Section 43 (1) explanation 8 as otherwise cost of the asset shown in the balance sheet will not depict its true picture. This is in conformity with law and the accounting principles.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nandeshwari Packaging (Cestat Ahemdabad)- Show cause notice issued on 9-7-2004 is barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the same stands issued after the period of six months from the date of search and even after completion of the investigations.
ACIT vs Mahalaxmi Chemical Works The notice under s.148 was issued for the reason that interest paid was not allowable since funds taken on interest were not used for business purpose.During reassessment said interest was not disallowed, accepting the assessee’s explanation. The reassessment for that reason could not be held to be invalid since there was prima facie reason to believe at the time of issue of notice under s.148 that income had escaped assessment.
The assessment for AY 90-91 was reopened on the ground to verify whether the income from warehousing charges should be treated as income from business or income from house property. Ultimately after investigating the case in detail, the Assessing Officer himself arrived at a conclusion that charges on account of warehousing are business receipts and the reassessment was completed accordingly. Now, for these years under consideration the department had taken a different view, which in our considered opinion,
