Whether, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that reimbursement of expenses on account of catering charges and fuel etc. to the assessee were not part of the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to quote the provisions contained
The argument of the Revenue that the judgement in Dharmendra Textile Processor’s case (supra) would apply and penalty equal to the amount of duty of excise assessed by the Assessing Authority is to be paid. We are afraid that such an argument would not be available because judgement in Dharmendra Textile Processor’s case (supra) dealt with Section 11 AC of the Act and has concluded the mandatory nature of the penalty contemplated by the proviso . In para 26, reference has been made to the Union Budget of 1996-97, when Section 11 AC of the Act was introduced.
8. Having heard the learned counsel Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate for the assessee-company and Ms Prem Lata Bansal for the Revenue we are of the view that the judgment deserves to be sustained. The principle of mutuality as enunciated by the Courts in various cases is applicable to a situation where the income of the mutual concern is the contributions received from its contributors
4. At the outset, we need to underscore that so far as findings of fact are concerned interference of the High Court would be justified only if it appears to it that the conclusions arrived at by the ITAT are palpably perverse. 5. The entitlement of sundry parties to the receipt of commission essentially entails a determination
12. In order to come to a definite conclusion whether section 194H of the Act would be applicable to the assessee-airline in respect of transaction, in issue, we propose to first look at the scope and ambit of section 194H of the Act and then analyse the transaction as to whether it falls within the purview of the said Section. In this context, it would be necessary to extract the relevant portions of Section 194H of the Act.
The assessee sold valve actuators. At the time of sale, the assessee provided standard warranty that if the product was defective within the stated period, the product would be rectified or replaced free of charge. For AY 1991-92, the assessee made a provision for warranty at Rs.10,18,800 at the rate of 1.5% of the turnover. As the actual expenditure was only Rs. 5,18,554,
19. It is true that attaching the properties of an assessee even before the crystlisation of the demand is a drastic step and has to be exercised only in extreme circumstances. Whether extreme circumstances existed in the present case so as to levy provisional attachment under section 281B of the Act is the question. 20. In the present case, the incriminating documents seized during the course of search and seizure
8.3 It cannot be disputed and it is not the case of either side that the reasons extracted hereinabove did not precede the issuance of notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. The requirement for recordal of reasons by the Assessing Officer before issuing a notice is provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Act. 8.4 A perusal of the reasons would thus show that the Assessing Officer was
6.1 The main question before us for decision is whether the interest income could be treated as “business income” or “income from other sources”. The answer to this question has to depend on how the interest income derived by the assessee. No doubt, normally, on the placing of funds in banks on short-term or long-term deposits the interest income derived from those sources would be “income from other sources”
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. In the instant case it is observed that interest expenditure claimed by the assessee at an amount of Rs. 27.90 lacs was disallowed by the Assessing Officer which was restricted by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 27.75 lacs being net amount of interest paid by the assessee
