In fact, it is clarified that the definition of the word work will not include manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from a person other than such customer. However, this amendment came into force only with effect from 1st October, 2009, which will not apply to the period in question in the present case(s).
A perusal of the provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act shows that in the explanation ‘infrastructure facility’ has been specified to mean a road including a toll road, a bridge or a rail system. Admittedly, the assessee is doing the business of development of railway tracks and bridges thereof as also roads.
In the return of income, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. During the course of assessment, the assessee disclosed that apart from property purchased at Kodaikanal for Rs. 1,14,88,000/-
By his RTI application dated 16.5.2011, complainant S.C. Aggarwal has sought the following information from the Presidents/Secretaries of the Indian National Congress (INC/AICC) and the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)
Whether failure on part of AO for examining truly and fully all the material facts by the assessee could lead to reassessment and also mere information regarding income escapement can be considered valid for the purpose of sec. 147?
Merely because a claim (per the return of income) is a legal claim, or has a legal aspect to it – which would be in each case – the same by itself cannot be a cause for non levy of penalty in every case, as where there is no valid basis for the same (i.e., the legal claim).
Issue pertains to expenditure of Rs.1.02 crores ( rounded off) expended by the assessee and whether the same should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. For the assessment year 2008-09 the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had debited in the profit and loss account
Due date referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act must be read in conjunction with section 43B(b) of the Act and a reading of the same would make it amply clear that the due date as mentioned in Section 36(1)(va), is the due date as mentioned in section 43B(b)
In our opinion, the amount representing 2118.84 is towards investment in share capital of the subsidiaries outside India as the transactions are not in the nature of transactions referred to section 92-B of the IT Act and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income.
Once the CBDT has issued instructions for assumption of jurisdiction for selection of cases of corporate assesses for scrutiny and assessment thereof, the same have to be followed in letter and spirit by the AO .
