6. Section 132(1) (b) & (c) of the Act to the extent relevant to the present case reads thus:- 132. (1) Where the [Director General or Director] or the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] [or any such (Joint Director) or (Joint Commissioner) as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board], in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-(a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section
The transfer of brand name does not have any meaning for the buyer until and unless the know-how for the manufacture of the formulations sold under that particular brand name, is also transferred.
18. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders, decisions and judgments and provisions of the Income-tax Act. From the facts, it is noticed that the objection of the revenue is with regard to the assessee’s failure to follow the AS-15 and the ‘actuarial method’ referred therein and not disputed the quantification of the ‘provision of gratuity. In other words, the incorrect quantification of the provision
7. The scope of section 263 has been determined by the propositions pro-founded by the Hon’bie Apex Court as well as other courts. For the revenue, an incorrect assumption of fact, incorrect assumption of law, failure to or routinely to conduct investigation in to the issue together with the ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are the approved grounds for assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263
20. Deduction which are allowed while computing business income have been laid down in section 30 to 36. section 37 is a residuary section extending the allowance of expenses to items of expenditure not covered by Section 30 to 36, the list of allowances enumerated in sections 30 to 36 being not exhaustive. An item of expenditure, which is wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business may be allowed to be deducted
10. Section 194C relating to `payment to contractors and sub-contractors’ and relevant provisions read as under:- “194C(1)Any person responsibility for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and –
6. Admittedly, the assessee in these appeals are non-resident companies having no permanent establishment in India. It is also not disputed that after the contract received by the assessee companies in the year 1983 and before, fresh contract was given to them by the ONGC only in the year 1999. Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) argued that since the respondent / assessee
The First Respondent had filed a claim petition against the Petitioners before the arbitrator seeking a sum of over Rs.57 lakhs stated to be due under a hire-purchase agreement. The Petitioners raised a specific plea before the arbitrator that the claim petition was not maintainable as the first Petitioner had been declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR and that section 22 of SICA placed an embargo on the continuation of the arbitral proceedings against them.
Search & seizure action u/s 132 was undertaken at the assessee’s premises. Thereafter an order of provisional attachment u/s 281B was passed. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the search and the provisional attachment. HELD dismissing the Petition: (1) Search action u/s 132 can be initiated only if the designated authority forms a reasonable belief
The contention of the assessee regarding allowability of foreseeable loss is accepted in principle, However, the issue is restored to the file of AO for the purpose of quantification and calculation of the said loss in terms of Accounting Standard -7, as the same has not been done.
