If the business carried on by the trust is not in line with the object of the trust then whether the income from the business is liable to the exemption u/s 11. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that in case we hold that the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption because the Katha business was itself not held under trust, it would produce an anomalous or discriminatory result inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the Katha business itself would be held in trust
The petitioner is a company incorporated on 24th April, 2006 as a Private Limited Company and doing business of selling, reselling and exchanging, etc. and dealing in all relevant components of computers. The respondent had approached the petitioner to hire the computers and laptops, by entering into an agreement. In view of the agreement, the respondent had hired computers, laptops, and peripherals from the petitioner.
The assessee continued to earn the non-compete commission in his capacity as an employee, to refrain from carrying on any business similar to that of UC. The assessee, in this case, also continued his employment with the firm, and was given commission for doing what he was normally expected to do, i.e. work for the said firm in his area of expertise.
As already seen, merely because, more than one panchanama is drawn in the given case on one authorisation, one cannot construe that the subsequent and the last of the panchanama issued as one flowing out of the search as a last of the panchanama referrable to Explanation (2) to Section 1 58BE. Once the warrant of authorisation has been issued and the premises is searched and the search party leaves the premises,
The Proviso to s. 10A(1A) provides that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to an assessee who does not furnish a return of his income on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1). The assessee’s argument that the said Proviso is merely directory and not mandatory is not acceptable.
It appears that there is a difference between the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act and those of Section 23(4) thereof. However, it is not so. As per Section 23(1)(c), if any part of the property was let out and was vacant during the year or any part thereof, and due to such vacancy, the annual rent received or receivable was less than the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the lesser of the two amounts, i.e., t
A very heavy onus is placed on the assessee to explain the difference between the assessed income and returned income and the assessee in the instant case did not discharge the said onus. In the light of the discussion made above and conduct of the assessee, it is thus clear that all the material facts and particulars relating to the assessee’s computation of income were never disclosed by the assessee,
There is no dispute on the fact of delay of 1529 days as well as on non-furnishing of any affidavit by the Counsels affirming that assessee had a conference with the Counsels which give raise to the necessity of filing the impugned cross objections. Further, there is no explanation as to why and under what circumstances, the assessee approached the Counsels on 26-12-2008 only and not within 30 days from the receipt of the notice.
There is no quarrel on the point that the assessee, being an insurance company is not required to prepare its accounts as per Parts II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Sub-section (2) of section 211 are required every profit and loss accounts of the Companies shall be prepared as per the requirement of Part II of Schedule VI.
In all foreign countries operation was carried out through assessee’s branches which was a permanent establishment situated outside India. Hence, the income attributable to these branches cannot be taxed in India. This issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee by Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1997-98. Therefore, appeal filed by the department was to be dismissed.
