Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The question relates to the effect of Section 43A of the Act.
The provision of section 147 is not, in any manner, controlled by section 92 nor there is any limit to consideration of any material having nexus with the opinion on the issue of escapement of assessment of income; requirement of section 147 is fulfilled if the AO can legitimately form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; for forming such opinion, any relevant material can be considered and the order of TPO can certainly have nexus for reaching the conclusion that income has been incorrectly assessed or has escaped assessment; in such a situation, it cannot be held that the notice proposing reassessment is vitiated merely because one of the reasons referred to order of TPO.
Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE (CESTAT Delhi) – Merely credit was taken by the assessee and not utilized and not taken any advantage of such credit, payment of interest is not sustainable. There is no allegation that the appellant utilized or taken any advantage of the credit and therefore recovery of interest is set aside.
Srivatsan Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. (‘Appellant’) is engaged in the business of licensed surveyors and loss assessors under the Insurance Act, 1938. The Appellant entered into a non-compete covenant with its director, Mr. Srivatsan and paid a sum of Rs.10 million, on which depreciation was claimed, treating it as an intangible asset. As per the covenant, Mr. Srivatsan agreed not to carry on his individual business of general insurance survey, loss assessment, valuation of assets, etc. for a period of seven years and also to abstain from other activities which might jeopardize the business interests of the Appellant in any manner.
We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. The assessee company was carrying on the business as licensed surveyors and loss assessors under the Insurance Act, 1938. During the relevant year the assessee did claim depreciation amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/- in relation to payment of non compete fee arising out of a restrictive covenants
Burmah Castrol vs. DIT Mumbai The applicant, Burmah Castrol Plc. is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. The applicant submits that during the financial year 2001-02, as per the directive of SEBI, it acquired 12,77,292 equity shares of Foseco India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “FIL”), an Indian company, for an acquisition price of Rs. 221.86 per share and also as per those directives paid a further amount of Rs.49.1429per share for the delay in making the Open Offer.
Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd 317 ITR 249 (Del)- Tribunal had arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met.
The tribunal was not right in law in its interpretation of the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) and was wrong in holding that the penalty order passed on 17.02.2004 under Section 271B was within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.
Although, no claim under Section 10A had been made before the Assessing Officer, the respondent/assessee had made such a claim before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee was fully justified in raising the claim under Section 10A of the said Act
We have considered the, rival submissions, perused the material on record. In the instant case, rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR on 05.07.2001, A copy of the summary record of the proceedings of the hearing held on 5.7.2001 before BIFR- have been placed in the Paper Book. It has been held in the aforesaid proceedings para 22 as under:
