Undisputedly the AO has not made assessment on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 rather proceeded u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of some pre-search enquiries to make an addition
The nature of services rendered by the subsidiaries to the assessee were in respect of simple marketing services of introducing foreign institutional investors to invest in capital markets in India so that the assessee would improve its business in India.
The Commissioner by an order dated 15.3.2000 allowed some of the grounds of appeal. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer stood merged with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and had no independent existence of its own and as such the assessment could not have been reopened in respect of the said items.
Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Kolkata) We find that on perusal of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto assessment year 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation is permissible to all assessees who are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In the […]
Under section 153A of the Act, an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made
hen a claim was processed at length and after calling for detailed explanation from the assessee, the same was accepted, merely because a certain element or angle was not in the mind of the Assessing Officer while accepting such a claim, cannot be a ground for issuing notice for reassessment.
When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal’s mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the Court or the Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review.
In the present facts we find that consequent to the vendor not honouring the agreement dated 18th May, 1980, all that the appellant had was a right to seek specific performance which he sought to enforce by filing the suit. The appellant did not have possession of the said land. It is only on the Consent Terms being filed in Court that the appellant got ownership and possession.
In case, the owner of a brand name allows its usage to another entity, then a fee is recovered as a mode of compensation which is generally known as brand royalty.
The assessee in order to draw benefit of the exemption under Proviso to section 56(2)(vi) of the Act was required to prove that the said gifts were received from any relative described there under or had been received on the occasion of marriage of the individual i.e., assessee.
