It is further important to note the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the distinction between software, being a set of instructions allowing physical hardware to perform instructions and Data, which is information that does not perform any
A 3 Member Special Bench was constituted to decide whether the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 on intangible assets termed ‘Goodwill’. At the hearing, the assessee raised a preliminary objection that as the Judicial Member on the Special Bench has already taken a view about allowability of depreciation on goodwill in the case of Bharatbhai J. Vyas vs. ITO 97 ITD 248 (Ahd.) judicial discipline requires that this Special Bench should consist of persons who have not already taken a view.
Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that on 14th September, 2004, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted out on the respondent-assessee?s business premises. During the course of survey, the tax officials noticed some discrepancies in stock and cash in hand. During the said survey, respondent-assessee surrendered an amount of ` 99,50,000/- and offered the same for the purposes of taxation. The additional income offered included a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- on account of excess stock found during the course of survey and offered by one of the partners of the respondent-assessee as additional income.
S. 115 JB can only come into play when the assessee is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. The starting point of computation of minimum alternate tax u/s 115 JB is the result shown by such a profit and loss account.
The respondent can reverse the CENVAT credit availed on capital goods treating it as undesirable credit to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, and pay duty from PLA otherwise payable after exhausting CENVAT Credit balance thereby claiming refund of the same under Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001.
CIT Vs. Saranapal Singh (HUF) (Punjab & Haryana Court)- In the instant case, it was held that where the assessee had received a certain amount as short term loan and was duly repaid the said amount could not be treated as income of assessee under section 56(2)(v) of the Act.
In the light of the above decisions, it can now be concluded that orders of CIT which set aside assessment orders on the ground that they are erroneous (due to non application of mind, etc) without recording any finding to show as to how the said assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue (without rejecting the claim of the taxpayer) are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
(i) The extent of applicability of principles of natural justice depends upon the nature of inquiry, the consequences that may visit a person after such inquiry from out of the decision pursuant to such inquiry. The right to fair hearing is a guaranteed right. Every person before an Authority exercising the adjudicatory powers has a right to know the evidence to be used against him. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) followed; (ii) However, the principles of natural justice do not require supply of documents upon which no reliance has been placed by the Authority to set the law into motion. Supply of relied on documents based on which the law has been set into motion would meet the requirements of principles of natural justice; (iii) The concept of fairness is not a one way street. The principles of natural justice are not intended to operate as roadblocks to obstruct statutory inquiries. Duty of adequate disclosure is only an additional procedural safeguard in order to ensure the attainment of the fairness and it has its own limitations. The extent of its applicability depends upon the statutory framework;
Though the damages included an element of interest, the same is not assessable because in a decree or arbitration award, the amount loses its original character and assumes the character of a judgment debt. In substance, interest partake the character of the compensation and is not assessable as interest. Islamic Investment 265 ITR 254 (Bom) followed.
The assessee, a charitable trust, filed a return claiming exemption u/s 11 in respect inter alia of a receipt of Rs. 35.70 crores on sale of property. The audit report in Form 10B was not filed with the return. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee’s trustee gave a statement u/s 131 to the AO in which he stated that no audit report u/s 10B was obtained.
