5.6 There cannot be a straight jacket formula for detection of these defaults of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and indeed concealment of particulars of income and in accurate particulars of income may at times overlap. It depends upon the facts of the each case. In the assessment proceedings the ITO while ascertaining the total income chargeable to tax would be in a position
(iii) Even in the case of the assessee, the department is accepting the earning of income albeit on a different footing i.e. claiming the same to be salary income in contra distinction to assessee’s claim being business income by virtue of Section 28(va). Though reference is made to colourable devise in the hands of the assessee following Supreme Court judgment in the case of McDowell &. Co. (supra), the same confine
17.1 According to us, as correctly held by the Tribunal, the assessee’s claim for deduction had to be allowed, in one lump sum, keeping in view the provisions of Section 43B(d) which provides that any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any financial institution shall be allowed to the assessee in the year in which the same is paid irrespective of the provisions in which the liability to pay
22. The primary function of the Income Tax Act is to bring the income of various kinds into the tax net. The Income Tax authorities are not concerned about the manner or means of acquiring income. The income might have been earned illegally or by resorting to unlawful means. Illegality tainted with the earning has no bearing on its taxability.
44. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. The assessments in the present case have been made u/s 153A of the Act. Section 13A provides that in case a person against whom search is initiated u/s 132A of the Act then notwithstanding anything contained in sections 39, 147,148,149 151 and 153 of the Income Tax Act, the AO shall issue a notice to such person
8. We have carefully deliberated on the rival contentions raised by the learned AR and DR. The controversy here revolves around chargeability of interest income to the tax which even though technically accrued as per the mercantile-system of accounting being followed by the assessee, but the same was not accounted for as income in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein there was
Where the AO reopened the assessment to rework the book profits u/s 115JA and in an appeal against such order the assessee raised other issues unconnected with the reassessment and the preliminary point arose as to whether in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sun Engineering 198 ITR 297, […]
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessee’s contention that when the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging interest under Section 234B of the Act by relying upon the decision in the case of Motorola Inc. rendered by Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT, “A” Bench, Delhi, reported in (2005) 95 ITD 269.”
Where the assessee was an Indian company and more than 51% of its equity share capital was held by a German company (Daimler Benz AG) and pursuant to an offshore merger the said shares came to be held by another German company (DaimlerChrysler AG) and there being a change of more than 51% of the beneficial interest in the shares, the question arose whether section 79 of the Act (pre- amendment)
It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employee(s). For the above reasons there is no merit in the Civil Appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
