Uncontrovertedly, necessary details/reply to the questionnaire were filed/produced by the assessee and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer
The assessment proceedings u/s 143(2) of the Act are not meant for the benefit of the assessee but are for the benefit of Revenue only so that the AO is able to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner.
Any secret transaction/payment that is made to secure an unfair advantage, would necessarily be repugnant to law. Transaction which is not transparent, offends normal business practice, must suffer scrutiny.
order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence.
When the language of Section 115WA and 115WB is clear and unambiguous and even the intention of the legislature while enacting sections 115WA and 115WB(2) is very clear i.e. with respect to the deemed fringe benefits, neither there is any scope for either literal and/ or purposive interpretation nor there is any occasion to consider the intention and for that purpose the speech of Honourable Prime Minister in the Parliament.
It is pertinent to note that the assessee has actually received the salary from his previous employers after deducting the notice period as per the job agreement with them. Therefore, in our considered view, the actual salary received by the assessee is only taxable.
Amendment to Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective with effect from 1st April, 2005 as held by various High Courts.
Any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would always partake the character of agricultural income itself. The consideration stated in the Registered Sale Deed was agricultrual income. Likewise, the on money also should be treated as agricultural income.
Thus, the concept of Mutuality postulates that all the contributors to the common fund must be entitled to participate in the surplus and that all the participators in the surplus are contributors to the common fund. It is in this sense that the law postulates that there must be a complete identity between the contributors and the participators.
It appears that the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant has mainly contested the appeal on the ground that under such circumstances Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are not required to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. However, we are of the opinion that contention of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in this respect cannot be accepted.
