Income did not accrue in the hands of the assessee owing to the precarious financial condition of the debtor notwithstanding that: (a) Services were rendered and the income was recorded in the books of account of the assessee during the relevant year & (b) bad debts were claimed in subsequent years when the dispute was settled
A comparison of the definition of ‘royalty’ as provided under the DTAA (as reproduced above) with the definition of ‘royalty’ as provided under Income Tax Act shows that the same are not at para materia with each other.The definition provided under the DTAA is the very short and restrictive definition, whereas, the definition of the royalty as provided under the Income Tax Act is a very wide and inclusive but vague. A careful reading of the relevant provision under the DTAA and under the Income Tax Act reveals that the DTAA covers only a part of the items mentioned under sub clause (i) to (v)to Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). We may mention here that the section9(1)(vi) having sub clauses (a), (b), & (c) is very vast to cover consideration paid for any right, property or information used or services utilized for the purpose of business or profession. Further, we find that in the said sub clauses(a), (b) & (c) of section 9(1) (vi), the wording is somewhat vague and negatively written.
So far as the contention of the AO that the subsidy is liable to be taxed under section 50 of the Act is concerned, we find that in this case neither there was a transfer of any asset from the block nor did the block has ceased to exist. It is not a case of capital gains by way of transfer but it is only a case of capital receipt as observed above as an incentive by the state government to promote the generation of electricity through non conventional sources. In view of the above, in our view, the subsidy received by the assessee is not taxable under section 41(1) neither under section 43(1) and nor under section 50 of the Act
Mere non-intimation of the amendments in the Trust Deed to the Department cannot ipso-facto lead to cancellation of registration because the statutory requirement of cancellation of registration contained in section 12AA(3) of the Act prescribe that the cancellation of registration cannot be effectuated unless a case is made out that the new objects do not fit-in with the existing objects (i.e. new objects are ‘non-charitable’ in nature) or that the activities are in-genuine
The word ‘purchase’ used in Section 54 of the Act should be interpreted pragmatically. The intention behind Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his residential house and had purchased another residential house within two years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year before transfer. It was only the excess amount not used for making purchase or construction of the property within the stipulated period, which was taxable as long term capital gain while on the amount spent, relief should be granted. Principle of purposive interpretation should be applied to subserve the object and more particularly when one was concerned with exemption from payment of tax
As per our considered view, since the purchases so made were not sold by the assessee, the AO was not justified in estimating 15% profit on such bogus purchases. However, such bogus purchases/expenses were going to reduce the assessee’s profits by the equal amount of such expenses and not only by 15% as taken by the AO. It was not a case where purchases so made were actually sold by the assessee. Where assessee is found to have sold the goods out of the bogus purchases, under those circumstances it is reasonable to estimate profit out of such sales so as to make appropriate addition. However, in the instant case the assessee was engaged in the business of hotel wherein the expenditure alleged to be incurred on plumbing, electrical items, furniture, printing and stationary etc appears to have reduced directly the profit earned by assessee
The six month period for the purpose of clause (c) of section 275(1) of the Act is to be computed from the date of issue of first show cause notice by the AO and not from the date of issue of first show cause notice issued by the Joint Commissioner
When an amount, which is stated, claimed and accepted as a payable, is no longer so, the assessee gains to that extent. There is nothing unreal or notional about this gain. What is admitted though is that there has been remission/cessation of liability in-as-much as these are no longer payable. Why? No reason is advanced. It is under these circumstances that the law permits the A.O. to draw an adverse inference of it as representing the assessee’s income. As regards the year, there can again be little doubt in the matter
At the time of surrender itself contention of not initiating any penalty proceedings was there. No additional matter was discovered to prove that there was concealment of income. The AO has included the amount of share capital in the total income of assessee merely on the basis of assessee’s declaration/surrender. The AO did not point out or refer any evidence or material to show that the amount of share capital received by the assessee was bogus. It is also not the case of the revenue that material was found at the assessee’s premises to indicate that share application money received was an arranged affair to accommodate assessee’s unaccounted money. Thus there was no detection by the AO that share capital was not genuine. The surrender of share capital after issue of the notice u/s.143(2) could not lead to any inference that it was not voluntary.
If the addition made by the A.O. is accepted, then G.P. Ratio of the appellant during the present A.Y.will become abnormally high and therefore that is not acceptable because it onus of the A.O. by bringing adequate material on record to prove that such a high G.P. ratio exists in the nature of business carried out by the appellant. Further, it has to be appreciated that (i)Payments were through banking channel and by Cheque, (ii) Notices coming back, does not mean, those Parties are bogus, they are just denying their business to avoid sales tax/VAT etc, (iii) Statement by third parties cannot be concluded adversely in isolation and without corroborating evidences against appellant ,(iv) No cross examination has been offered by AO to the appellant to cross examine the relevant parties (who are deemed to be witness or approver being used by AO against the appellant) whose name appear in the website www.mahavat.gov.in and (v) Failure to produce parties cannot be treated adversely against appellant