In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ITAT. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed travelling expenses amounting to Rs.4,29,01 1/-. The AO disallowed 50% of the claim because the expenses included the expenses of assessee’ s wife also.
In case of private assessee, the Commissioner will refer the matter to an officer to collect the material or Chartered Accountant for the purpose of audit. Thus, for the purpose of audit, the material can be collected either by the officer authorized by the Commissioner or by the Auditor himself. But, audit will be performed only by the Chartered Accountant.
It was held had held that Disallowance u/s 14A for the period before AY 2008-09 i.e pre-Rule 8D period, should be restricted to 2% of the dividend income. Shakuntaladevi Trade & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
As regards assessee’s submission that the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) will not come into play in this case because the entire testing process is automated, it is well settled that when no human intervention is involved in any services, such services cannot be treated to be of the nature which can be covered by the scope of section 9(1)(vii).
The High Court’s power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). This power is subject, however, to two conditions, (one) the Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions, and (two) the Court has to record reasons therefor.
The Andhra Pradesh HC has held in the case Shri M. Jaffer Saheb (Decd.) Vs. CIT that interest granted under Section 244A of the Act on income tax refund is chargeable to tax on accrual basis and has to be spread over the respective years for which interest is being granted.
Since there is variation of decisions on ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ issue in view of the fact that the hon’ble Calcutta high court and Gujarat high court have decided the question in favour of the Revenue and the hon’ble Allahabad high court in the case of CIT vs M/s Vector shipping Services (P) Ltd has proceeded in favour of the assessee, the case law of hon’ble supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 would apply so as to decide the issue in assessee’s favour.
From the record, it appears that originally, the dispute was between Accountant and Judicial Members of the Tribunal and it was not functioning. So, adjournment was sought by the petitioner, but the same was refused. However, on 06.03.2013, the case of the petitioner was decided in favour of the assessee in his presence.
The Supreme Court today held in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. that no approval from the Centre is required by CBI to prosecute senior bureaucrats in court-monitored corruption cases, strengthening the arms of the agency to go ahead against the officials without taking prior sanction from government.
