Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of A.Y. 1997-98 on the basis of finding that the assessee had not paid tax on the income declared under VDIS, 97 and made the addition of income declared year-wise under VDIS as unexplained investment. It was held that the addition was not justified as the alleged investments were not made in the immediate preceding financial year to the assessment year under consideration.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds. The three orders namely; (1) the order dated October 6, 1992 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda, declining to accept the claim of the petitioner for interest on refund on the ground that it is not admissible under Sections 243(1)(b), 244(1A) and 214(2) of the Act,
Section 1 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Applicability of Act – Whether co-operative banks established under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, transacting business of banking, do not fall within meaning of ‘banking company’ as defined in section 5(c) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and, therefore, provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, by invoking doctrine of incorporation, are not applicable to recovery of dues by such co-operative banks from their members – Held, yes
1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter referred to as), are filed against the common order dated December 31, 2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in three batches of appeals relating to orders under Sections 201(1), 201(1A) and 271C relating to the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97.
The question brought before us by the Revenue is, as to whether the income from sale of plants grown directly in the pots and the sale of seeds, can be treated as agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? The finding of the Tribunal is that the plants were not grown in the pots directly, but they are, after several operations carried out in the land, viz., cutting, gootying and inarching for the plants, transplanted in suitable containers, including pots and kept in the green house or in shade, and the trees were grown on the land directly.
Depending on the facts, nursery income may or may not be agricultural income. We are giving here two HC judgements that will help you. You can always file a return for AY 07-08 claiming nursery income as agriculture income(if facts permit so) and this would not be concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
In the present case during the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that there were credit balance in the names of two parties amounting to Rs.3,52,581/- appearing in the books of account of the assessee. On being asked to verify the same, the assessee agreed to surrender it. The said cessation of liability could not be treated to have been earned from business of export and, thus, shall not form part of the turnover of the export business.
The assessment under the Central Excise law in the name of partnership firm will virtually, for all purposes, be assessment of the partners of such firm who will be jointly and severally liable for the duty liability that was incurred during the currency of their partnership venture of manufacturing excisable goods. The decisions of this Tribunal taking a contrary view are no longer good law and will stand overruled.
The interesting question raised in this petition is, where a company deducts tax at source (TDS) from the salary payable to an employee, but fails to deposit the said amount into the Government treasury, whether, the revenue can recover the TDS amount with interest from the employee concerned in spite of the express bar contained in section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof
