Clearly, unless a receipt is not an income, there is no occasion for the provisions of Section 56(1) or 56(2) coming into play. Section 56 does not decide what is an income. What it holds is that if there is an income, which is not taxable under any of the heads under Section 14, i.e item A to E, it is taxable under the head income from other sources’.
The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon various decisions of the High Court and of the Apex Court, but in none of the decisions, the question arisen before the respective Court as to whether the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can be disturbed or upset at the stage of appeal before this Court, which is limited to the question of law. All decisions proceed on the basis that the nexus is established, which as per the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is not established in the present case. Hence, the said decisions are of no help to the appellant.
Under one time settlement the bank waived loan amount (used by the assessee for acquiring capital assets) which includes both principal amount of loan and interest on loan. Held that Waiver of loan is taxable under section (‘u/s’) 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that raising of invoices per se doesn’t result in accrual of income rather an income can be considered to have been accrued only when there is a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount to the assessee and there is realistic probability of realization of the income to the assessee.
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the above cited case held that exempting cable operators from luxury tax while making DTH operators to pay the same is a case of discriminatory levy of luxury tax merely because of technological differences in the system of deliveryof entertainment in both the services.
It was held that in case of erstwhile in terms of Rule 57AB(1C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, it was held that in terms of circular dated 1.7.2002 by which, where no sale is involved but only a transfer by one sister unit to another, the value shown in the invoice on the basis of which Cenvat credit was taken by the assessee would be the value for the purpose of Rule 57AB and Rule 3(4).
As regards applicability of TDS provisions, not two but three views exist on the impugned issue – (i) TDS u/s 194H – which was discussed by AO in the assessment order dt. 18/3/2012; TDS u/s 194C – which was discussed and upheld by AO in the assessment order dt. 18/3/2012; TDS u/s.194A – (which the assessee does not agree with) and not sought to be taken by CIT. Revision of order u/s 263 cannot be done if two views are possible on the issue.
The CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding on the basis of material placed on record to the effect that all the three conditions regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditors were duly established.
Various additions have been made by AO without proper application of mind and has no distant connection with the material on record & third party transactions were added in the hands of the assessee without any basis or material and thus, the AO framed the assessment in a hypothetical way putting the assessee to enormous harassment and inconvenience.
Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law.
