As the search warrant was issued in the joint names of the assessee and her spouse, it means that the officer had reason to believe that the undisclosed assets and income were held jointly. If so, it is not open for the AO to assess the assessee individually on the basis of the assets and documents seized during the course of search in pursuance to the said warrant but the assessment ought to have been only in the capacity of AOP or BOI.
The AO passed a block assessment order u/s 158BC by which he assessed the undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 24.37 L. Subsequently, he passed an order by which he added a further sum of Rs. 13.66 L to the said undisclosed income without issuing a notice u/s 148. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the AO could not have made the addition without reopening the block assessment u/s 147.
Section 80-IA(5) would come into operation only from the year in which the assessee started claiming deduction under section 80-IA i.e. from the initial year and the depreciation relating to the years prior to the initial assessment year cannot be brought back notionally to be adjusted against the income of the initial or subsequent assessment yearsSection 80-IA(5) would come into operation only from the year in which the assessee started claiming deduction under section 80-IA i.e. from the initial year and the depreciation relating to the years prior to the initial assessment year cannot be brought back notionally to be adjusted against the income of the initial or subsequent assessment years
In assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the only identical reason recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, with variation in the amounts involved, is that the interest income under section 244 A has escaped assessment and to reassess the same under section 147 of the Act notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 148 the Assessing Officer applied a higher rate of tax, i.e. @ 55%, applicable to foreign companies on the business income instead of the tax rate applicable to domestic companies, aga
When we examine the facts of the present case, we feel that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court would not come to the aid of the assessee and permit the assessee to claim interest on interest in the given situation. As far as the appeals at hands are concerned, it is not in dispute that on filing the return by the assessee and processing the case under Section 143(1)(a), the excess amount of TDS and advance tax paid by the assessee was r
Section 172 of the Act 1961 is carefully Title of Section 172 is Shipping business of non-residents. For bringing a case under Chapter XV, H of the Act 1961, one has to establish a case of profits of non-residents from occasional shipping business Non-resident is defined under section 2(30), as a person who is not a resident and for the purpose of Sections 92, 93 and 168, includes a person who is not ordinarily resident within the meaning of clause (6) of Section 6. considered by us. Chapter XV titles as LIABILITY IN SPECIAL CASES. We have no concern with sections, starting from Section 159, till Section 171 from this Chapter XV. Section 172 comes under sub-title H.-Profits of nonresidents from occasional shipping business. Title of Section 172 is Shipping business of non-residents. For bringing a case under Chapter XV, H of the Act 1961, one has to establish a case of profits of non-residents from occasional shipping business. Non-resident is defined under section 2(30), as a person who is not a
In the absence of any definition provided under the Income Tax Act, it would be admissible to find out the scope of this expression by resorting to its meaning in common parlance as understood by common persons or its natural and grammatical manner. Law Lexicon, the Encyclopedia Law Dictionary (1997 Edition), provides the following meaning :-
The petitioners ‘Kutch Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a Voluntary Association of Industrial Units, and other Industrial Units operating in the Kutch District of State of Gujarat, have challenged the Notifications issued by respondent No. 1 bearing No. 16/2008-C.E dated 27.3.2008 as well as Notification No. 33/2008-C.E dated 10.6.2008 on the ground that they have effect of depriving the petitioners and other similarly situated industries and industrial units, set up pursuant to the Notification No. 39/2001-C.E dated 31.7.2001, providing for the exemption from payment of excise duty for five years from the date of commencement of commercial production, to the newly set up industrial units with specific minimum investments as an incentive to set up new industries in Kutch region after the devastating earthquake.
A partnership firm is a separate entity than that of its partners under the Income-tax Act and therefore, partners vis-à-vis partnership firm would stand on the same footing of shareholders vis-à-vis company; accordingly , income charged in the hands of partnership firm cannot be treated as being a non-exempt income in the hands of a partner of such firm and, therefore, provisions of section 14A would be applicable in computing the total income of such partner in respect of his share in the profits of such firm.
, A perusal of the provisions pf Section 142(2A) shows that at any stage of the proceedings before the A.O. if the A.O. is of the view that there is complexity in the accounts of the assessee, then, in the interest of justice, he may with the prior approval of the Chief Commission ^or the Commissioner
