Originally the ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, namely, B had started a proprietary concern. His son constituted six private limited companies and registered them under the Companies Act, 1956, and all the shareholders of these companies being the heirs of the late B, the companies were family concerns. The Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 started defendants Nos. 7 to 12 companies out of the funds of the original concern.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the determining of date when the loss was incurred will have to be derived from the admitted facts. It is not a matter of dispute that the fire which resulted in destruction of the stock of the applicant-assessee took place on 26.3.1978. The aforesaid fire destroyed the stock/goods of the applicant-assessee lying with the PSWC
7. Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully. The question for our consideration is whether the income accruing to the assessee should be assessed as `business income’ as claimed by the assessee or partly as `income from house property’ and partly as `income from other sources’ as held by the Assessing Officer Officer. At the outset, we may mention that the Assessing Officer has committed
11. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the impugned orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has clearly held that an admission by the assessee is not conclusive evidence and it is always open to the assessee who made the submission to show that it is incorrect.
Gopal Purohit v. JCIT- The delivery based transaction should be treated as of the nature of investment transactions and profit there from should be treated as short-term capital gain or long term capital gain depending upon the period of holding; employment of an infrastructure so as to keep a track of the developments in the share market cannot turn an investment activity into a business activity.
32. In order to attract section 194D, the commission or any other payment covered under the section should be a remuneration or reward for soliciting or procuring the insurance business. The insurance companies do not procure business for the assessee company nor does the assessee company pay commission or other payment for soliciting the business from the insurance companies.
(iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person’s handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested
10B (4) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the profits derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount which Bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of tljie business carried on by the undertaking.”
6.9 Right to review is a creature of statute as is right of appeal. The income-tax Act does not confer any power on the appellate authority, to review its own order. A review is not a substitute for an appeal, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Finance & Dairy Product (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Raj) 324; (1980) 125 ITR 404 (Raj). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Globe Transport Corporation
“37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid but or expended wholly and. exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession’.
