5.8 The question whether income from property should invariably be taxed under the head “income from house property” is to be decided after taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all factors prevailing in a given case. The Courts have formulated different tests to determine the head under which such income can be taxed. Merely because income is attached to immovable property
4. We have carefully considered the arguments on both the sides. We have also perused the order sought to be rectified. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal formulated the questions arising in the appeal. These are No.l to 5 as recorded in para 17 of the order. As regards first question the Tribunal held that the assessee has business connection in India. However, after considering clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1 )(i) of the Act
15. Though a search and seizure operation was conducted on 31.05.2003, but no indiscrirninating material was found therein. It seems that consequent upon the search in response to a notice under section 153A the assessee opted that the original return be taken as a return under the aforesaid provision. Thereafter, a questionnaire was issued requiring the assessee to inter-alia file the details of loans and gifts
15. We have heard both the parties at length and carefully gone through the materials available on record. In the instant case, the controversy to be resolved is whether assessee was a Local Authority for the year under consideration and as such was eligible for exemption of income u/s. 10(20) of the Act or not. Section 10 of the Act deals with the income which are not to be included in computing total income of previous year
The society is registered with the object principally of looking after the property including building thereon. There is no trading or business transactions. The members by adopting the bye-laws agree amongst themselves that a fee for transfer of flat/tenement when it is sold would be paid to the society. It may be that both incoming or outgoing member have to contribute to the common fund of the society
12. Section 9(l)(vi)(c) provides that any income by way of royalty payable by a person who is a resident except where the royalty is payable in respect of any right, property or information used or services utilized for the purpose of a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purpose
8. We shall first deal with the question whether furnishing of bank guarantee amounts to actual payment and fulfils the conditions stipulated in section 43B of the Act. The requirement of Section 43B of the Act is the actual payment and not deemed payment as condition precedent for making the claim for deduction in respect of any of the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the relevant previous year specified in Section 43B.
20. An Income Tax Officer while passing an order of assessment performs judicial function. An appeal lies against his order before the Appellate Authority. A Revision Application would also lie before the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is trite that the jurisdiction exercised by the Revisional Authority pertains to his Appellate jurisdiction. See Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat
7. A plain reading of the section would show that Sub. Sec (1) of 80HHC deals with deduction to be allowed to an assessee who is engaged in the business of export of goods or merchandise. The manner of determining the profits derived from export for the purpose of computation of deduction is provided in sub-sec (3), which has three clauses (a), (b), and (c ) covering three different aspects
19. We heard both sides in detail and considered the issue in the light of the facts of the present case and in the light of various judicial pronouncements relied on by the assessee as well was the Revenue. The assessee purchased the property in 1975. The Notification declaring the said property in the category of capital asset was made in 1994. The property was sold in 2006. Now the case of the assessee is that for the purpose of computing
