Factually, we find that the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation. Therefore, if the department did not agree with the explanation, then the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Imparting of yoga training through well structured yoga shivirs/ camps also falls under the category of imparting education, one of the charitable objects defined under section 2(15) of the Act.
ince the assessee did not carry on any profession in the relevant previous year, the receipt cannot be taxed u/s 28 of the Act, since Section 176 (4) does not contain any deeming provision treating such receipt as income falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation” and also, it cannot be taxed as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act.
A reading of the aforesaid passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in HEG Limited (supra) indicates that it would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when part payment is made as interest on interest. What has been elucidated and clarified by the Supreme Court is that when refund order is issued, the same should include the interest payable on the amount, which is refunded.
In Sandvik case, Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding certain amount which included the statutory interest and therefore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same not an interest on interest.
Client acquisition cost paid by the assessee is towards acquiring an intangible asset and therefore eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
Once an application for admission u/s 245C is filed before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, then the said application must be dealt with in accordance with law, i.e., refer to the contentions of the petitioners, the contention of the Revenue and then an objective, considered and a reasoned decision has to be taken.
Every Government has a right to levy taxes. But no Government has the right, in the process of extracting tax, to cause misery and harassment to the taxpayer and the gnawing feeling that he is made the victim of palpable injustice
Merely because expenditure has been incurred for material for duplication without acquisition of proprietary and when the expenditure is not of capital nature, the said Section would not be applicable.
Honorable SC held that If every decision taken by the State is tested by a microscopic and a suspicious eye, the administration will come to stand still and the decisions-makers will lose all their initiative and enthusiasm.
