In our opinion, the view which we are taking is also fortified by the proviso to s. 119 of the Act which specifically provides that the Board cannot issue instructions to the IT authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner as well as not to interfere with the discretion of the CIT(A) in exercise of his appellate functions.
The High Court relying on Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and following the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of C.I.T., U.P. v. Wheeler Club Limited {(1963) 49 ITR 52} and some observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (155 ITR 373)
Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Ashok Desai, Shri V. Gauri Shankar, Dr. D.P. Pal, Shri Joseph Vellapally, Shri K.N. Shukla, Shri Pallav Shishodia, Shri A.P. Medh, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Shri B.K. Prasad, Shri S.N. Terdol, Shri S. Rajappa, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Shri N.L. Garg, Shri C.V. Subba Rao, Shri Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Shri S.K. Dwivedi, Shri Tarun Gulati
The appellant-assessee is a private limited company. During the assessment year 1981-82 (accounting year ending on March 31, 1981), the assessee had purchased for the use of its staff seven low income group houses from the Housing Board. The assessee had made part payments and was in turn made allotment of the houses followed by delivery of possession
Common questions involved in these appeals are whether the job rendered by a photographer in taking photographs, developing and printing films would amount to a works contract as contemplated under Article 366(2A)(b) of the Constitution read with Section 2(n) of the M.P.General Sales Tax for the purpose of levy of sales tax on business turnover of the photographers.
Once satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings against the assessee under section 158BD was furnished to assessee, the entire grievance of assessee were disposed off and as per AO, in any case incriminating documents and undisclosed assets belonging to assessee were found and seized during search operations conducted by Revenue on Mr. M and hence proceedings initiated against assessee under section 158BD were valid.
Answers given by the High Court that (i) the assessee who made the payments to the three non-residents was under obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act in respect of the sums paid to them under the contracts entered into; and (ii) the obligation of the respondent-assessee to deduct tax under Section 195 is limited only to appropriate proportion of income chargeable under the Act, are correct.
Shorn of all details, it emerges that the assessee first filed his returns for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 showing income ranging between Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 12,000. Later action under Section 132 was taken against him which led to reopening of the assessment. A notice under Section 148 was served on him
As per the CBDT Circular discussed in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO; 240 ITR 727 Karnatka 500gm, jewellery is expected in the possession of a married lady and that much of ornaments cannot be seized. If we go with the CBDT Circular dated 11.05.1994 and the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Pati Devi (supra), then each lady is expected to own 500gm. ornaments.
It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit
