9. The first item of receipt is that of Rs.5.010 crores towards assignment of marketing rights for local as well as export business. The Assessing Officer held it to be a revenue receipt liable to tax. At this juncture, it will be relevant to consider the distinction between the revenue and capital receipt in the context of the nature of transaction we are concerned with. Albeit there is no conclusive test for drawing
13. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as above cited judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co (India) Ltd (supra). The case of the assessee is that the said subscription of Rs 3 lakhs is wholly and exclusively for the business purpose. On the other hand, the case of the revenue is that the unlike in company
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Section 194C provides that “any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and …….(d) any company ……….. shall,
10. A plain reading of section 154 quoted above reveals that the Assessing Officer has to pass an order amending the assessment within the period of limitation as provided under sub-section (7) . Sub-section (3) of section 154 quoted above makes it obligatory upon the Assessing Officer to give a notice to the assessee and afford reasonable opportunity of being heard if the proposed amendment has the effect of enhancing an assessment
5. From the facts of this case, it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not laid down any universally applicable principle that income from immovable property, be invariably taxed under the head ‘Income from House Property’. It was on the consideration of the cumulative effect of all the factors prevailing in case, which have been noted above, that the income from immovable property was held to be taxable under this head
8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that there is no dispute about the fact that the payments in question were made by the assessee company in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- towards service charges to the crew. The dispute, however, is that whether the said payments were covered by the exceptions prescribed in Rule 6DD(j)
7. We have carefully considered the relevant facts, arguments advanced and the case laws cited. It is not in dispute that the assessments sought to be reopened were earlier completed only by accepting the same under section 143(l)(a) of the Act. When assessments are completed under section 143(l)(a) it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise
Shri. Satish Chandra, former ITAT Member, was appointed judge of the Allahabad High Court on 6.8.2008. The appointment was challenged on the ground that he had not practiced for even a day as an advocate and that he was not eligible for appointment under Article 217(2) and Article 217(1) of the Constitution. It was also alleged that the mandatory process of consultation under the Constitution had not been followed.
The assessee purchased bottles and crates costing less than Rs. 5,000/- and was allowed 100% depreciation thereon u/s 32 (1) (ii). When the bottles and crates got worn out, they were sold by the assessee. The question arose whether the said sale proceeds were assessable to tax. Prior to AY 1988-89, the sale proceeds would have been assessable as a “balancing charge” u/s 41 (2)
With regard to the question as to whether Panna Bai was the benamidar of Dwarka Prasad Agarwala or not, the TRO, held that without doubt the transaction was benami and the real owner of the property at 13,Kalipukur Lane (Road), Sheoraphully, Hooghly, was Dwarka Prasad Agarwala and Panna Bai, wife of Dwarka Das Agarwala, was the ostensible fictitious owner.
