It was for the Assessing Officer to examine whether the disallowance offered by the assessee itself was sufficient on facts and circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the view he took regarding the applicability of rule 8D. It is not expected of him to take piecemeal decisions regarding the merits of the disallowance.
A reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Vysyaraju Badreenarayana Morthy Raju [1985] 152 ITR 454 shows that the computation of the net wealth of an assessee calls for a determination of his assets and debts as on the valuation date. Whether the system of accounting, whether mercantile or cash or hybrid, is not relevant for the purpose of determining the assets of the assessee. This is clear from the definition of ‘net wealth’.
Assessee spent considerable amount on advertisement of the institution which never existed and further, prospectus of the assessee trust has devoted substantially on carrying out the business activities of group concern showing logo of milk product. These factors were sufficient to hold that the ld. CIT rightly rejected both the applications of the assessee, particularly when no educational or charitable activities have been actually carried out and the assessee in initial stage,
In the present case, this Court notices that the Assessing Officer went into great lengths to verify the genuineness of these transactions. He issued summons to the share applicants- only 9 could be served; none actually responded through their authorized or principal officer. Even during remand, 16 of the 18 share applicants could not be served.
Where the assessee has written off the value of assets in the books of assessee as obsolete, can it still be include the value of said machinery in the block of assets and claim depreciation thereon. In the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Bharat Aluminium Co., Ltd., the Court held that in order to be entitled to claim depreciation asset has to be owned by the assessee and it has to be used for the purpose of business or profession, but the expression used for the purpose of business, would apply for block of assets and not any specific building, machinery, plant or furniture in the said block of assets, as the individual assets loose identity after becoming inseparable part of block of assets.
Whether the view taken by this Court in case of Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod (HUF) (supra) that the instructions of 2011 of the Board providing for revised monetary limits for filing the appeals to the Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court, would apply to all pending cases irrespective of the date of filing of such appeals is correct, particularly, in view of express language used in paragraph 2 of the instructions which provides for revised monetary limits for filing of the appeals and paragraph 11 thereof which provides inter-alia that such instructions will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011?
Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs. 60,19,000/- made by the Assessing officer was wrongly deleted by the Tribunal. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT v. SAS Educational Society [2009] 319 ITR 65 (Punj. & Har.), it was submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously accepted the plea of the assessee whereas in view of the express provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, any amount paid in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- was inadmissible.
It is difficult to appreciate the petitioner’s objection that the information received from DAO-45, New Delhi, acting under Article 26 of the Indo-Japanese treaty for the Avoidance of Double Taxation, cannot constitute valid material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer can form even a tentative or prima facie belief that income to the extent of Rs. 11,28,644/- had escaped assessment.
There is a fundamental fallacy in invoking the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act to the application of section 69B of the Income Tax Act, notwithstanding that both the Acts are cognate and have even been said to constitute an integrated scheme of taxation. Under the Income Tax Act, we are to find what was the real and actual consideration paid by the assessee and whether the full consideration has been recorded in the books.
The assessee had not deducted tax at source on the ground that the depositors intended to file form No. 15G/15H in time but Form No. 15G/15H were not filed by the date on which the interest was credited/paid to the depositors. In section 40 the word shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the heads Profits and gains of business or profession have been employed.
