If the returns are furnished and submitted, then, they deserve to be scrutinised. If they should be scrutinised expeditiously and early and equally the claims for refund in pursuance thereof, then, the only direction that we issue is that the Respondents process such cases and as expeditiously as possible.
High Court held that Business is a continuous activity which is done year to year. Here, in this case the Assessee let out his godown and shown income as Income from Business instead of Income from property to which the High court do not agree
CIT Vs. M/s. Sileman Khan Mahaboob Khan (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Merely because one of the objectives, in the partnership deed, was to let out the godowns would not mean that the assessee had undertaken the activity of construction of godowns and letting them out as business activity.
Section 12AA, which lays down the procedure for registration, does not speak anywhere that the CIT, while considering the application for registration, shall also see that the income derived by the trust or the institution is either not being spent for charitable purpose or such institution is earning profit.
The purported classification only on the basis of language without anything more and in particular having regard to the difference in the rate of tax, in our opinion is ex-facie arbitrary. The burden was, therefore, on the State to show that the imposition was justified.
In the instant case, undeniably the order under section 271FA was passed by the Director of Income-tax who is equivalent in rank with the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the order of the Director of Income-tax cannot be challenged or assailed by filing an appeal before an Officer,i.e., the Commissioner (Appeals), who is equivalent in rank with the Director of Income-tax. The appeal can only be filed before a higher forum than the forum whose order is to be challenged and the higher forum is only Tribunal and before it the order of the Director of Income-tax can only be challenged by filing an appeal.
The grievance of the Revenue with regard to the impugned order so far as change of opinion is concerned, is that the Assessing Officer had acted upon on audit objection which has been received by him. Thus, there was tangible material available for issuing notice for reopening of the assessment.
In a recent ruling that will have a bearing on the buyback activities, the Bombay High Court held that the premium paid for buyback of shares shall be tax deductible as business expenditure. (CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd).
CIT vs. Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Sub-section (4) of section 10B stipulated that deduction under that section shall be computed by apportioning the profits of the business of the undertaking in the ratio of turnover to the total turnover.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s M/S Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2015 has held that a mere non discussion or non mention in assessment order would not justify section 263 to be applied.
