10. A plain reading of section 154 quoted above reveals that the Assessing Officer has to pass an order amending the assessment within the period of limitation as provided under sub-section (7) . Sub-section (3) of section 154 quoted above makes it obligatory upon the Assessing Officer to give a notice to the assessee and afford reasonable opportunity of being heard if the proposed amendment has the effect of enhancing an assessment
5. From the facts of this case, it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not laid down any universally applicable principle that income from immovable property, be invariably taxed under the head ‘Income from House Property’. It was on the consideration of the cumulative effect of all the factors prevailing in case, which have been noted above, that the income from immovable property was held to be taxable under this head
8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that there is no dispute about the fact that the payments in question were made by the assessee company in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- towards service charges to the crew. The dispute, however, is that whether the said payments were covered by the exceptions prescribed in Rule 6DD(j)
7. We have carefully considered the relevant facts, arguments advanced and the case laws cited. It is not in dispute that the assessments sought to be reopened were earlier completed only by accepting the same under section 143(l)(a) of the Act. When assessments are completed under section 143(l)(a) it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise
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
