Expl. 7 to s. 271 (1) (c) provides that in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction, any amount added or disallowed in computing the total income u/s 92C (4) shall for purposes of s. 271 (1) (c) be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars furnished unless the assessee shows that the s. 92C computation was made in good faith and with due diligence.
I have duly considered the rival contentions and the material en record. The perception of the CIT that the profit is low prompted him to issue show cause notice to the assessee. Profit before taxation of the company as a whole for the year under consideration
The contention of the Revenue is that the sub-contractor is undertaking various activities which constitute the core of the contract work entrusted to the applicant. All the activities undertaken by the sub-contractor are on behalf of the applicant and in connection with the execution of the contract between the applicant and TPT. It is pointed out that the sub-contractor is a nominee of the applicant and the delegation of work to the sub-cont
A perusal of section 14A (2)(supra), evinces that the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in the total income shall be determined by the AO if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income not includible in the total income.
Admittedly there was no DTAA with Hongkong for the relevant year. As such we will restrict ourselves in examining the provisions of section 9(l)(vii) in order to ascertain the deductibility or otherwise of tax at source from the payment so made to the firm of legal advisors at Hongkong.
Provided further that the provisions of the preceding proviso shall not apply where the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer is in excess of the income show in the return and in such cases the penalty shall be imposed on that portion of undisclosed income determined which is in excess of the amount of undisclosed income shown in the return.”
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) is justified in holding that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee towards undisclosed income from the liquor business carried on by the firms M/s. Malabar Associates.
The facts leading up to the levy of penalty have been stated in the dissenting orders and there is no dispute regarding their accuracy. The only question is whether on these facts there was reasonable cause within the meaning of sec.273B preventing the assessee from accepting the sum of Rs. 15,00,000 from N.K. Chemist by account payee cheque or draft as required by sec.269SS.
I entirely agree that unless and until the terms and conditions of advance are known and agreed between the parties or through Government of Kerala, assessee will not acquire any right to receive interest on the advanced loan and no income would accrue by way of interest. This is well settled position.
As regards the issue raised with regard to rejecting the method in the change of valuation of closing stock, we find that the finding arrived at by the three authorities below that the change in the valuation of closing stock was not bona fide is a pure finding of fact and no question of law arises much less a substantial question of law.
