At the very outset, we observe that as appearing on record, in the return filed by the assessee the tax on sale of immoveable property was not paid or entered into. However, when notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, assessee himself attended the proceedings and thereafter paid the entire tax on the same date when the assessment order was finalized. This element of behaviour on the part of the assessee shows that when he had filed the return, there was some omission on the part of the assessee to include the tax on the sale of property. However, when he received notice under section 148 of the Act, he was very eager to know what mistake has been committed by him and, therefore, he himself attended the hearing before the Assessing Officer and on coming to know about the amount of tax payable, has immediately paid tax on the same date. He has not even challenged the assessment order and has accepted the assessment as passed by the Assessing Officer and paid due tax. Therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue.
The AO has neither recorded his satisfaction nor given reasons as to how the claim of expenditure in relation to tax free income has not been correctly made by the assessee as envisaged under section 14A(2). The AO has mechanically invoked Rule 8D. The AO has not established any nexus between the investments made and the expenditure incurred under the head interest expenditure and administrative expenses, before disregarding the disallowance suo moto made by the assessee. disallowance u/s.14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income
The activities of purchase and sale i.e. trading involves risk and finance whereas in the activity of support services i.e. intending transactions the assessee has neither to incur any financial obligation nor carries any significant risk. The nature of two activities is absolutely different. The activities of trading i.e. purchase and sale are highly insignificant as compared to activity of support service which constitutes the core business activities of the assessee. The TPO and DRP are wrong in applying the trading margins ignoring the facts of the case that the assessee being a service provider the trading margins cannot be applied. Further, the TPO DRP have gone wrong in including the cost of sales in OP/TC ignoring the fact the value of the sale under no circumstances effects the activities of the assessee company, a service provider. For support services the correct method is the TNMM and the assessee has computed the same on the basis of OP/TC. The OECD guidelines also supports this contention that in TP study business transactions cannot be recharacterized. The support service or intending provided by the assessee company is nothing but a trading facilitation both in form and substance
On a combined reading of Section 275(1)(a) along with its proviso it becomes clear that main section 275(1)(a) talks of a period of six months from the date on which the order is received by commissioner and main section also talks of orders passed by commissioner appeals as well as by tribunal talk whereas the proviso which is applicable from 01.06.2003 talks about orders passed by Commissioner Appeals only and here, the period of limitation for passing penalty order is one year from the date Commissioner receives Tribunal order
The plea of the assessee that the poor people do not come forward and avail free medical services, the assessee could not be blamed, is not sustainable. It is a matter of common knowledge that the poor patients are not given admission for treatment by private hospitals as they cater to only the elite class of the society. These private hospitals have been made in a five star style and they do not allow even the entry to the poor people in its corridors. In the government hospitals, the poor patients are lying in verandahs and in open space in wait for their turn for admission for days together and it is not believable that they will not come forward for treatment in the hospital providing all modern facilities free of cost
A simple reading of the provisions of Sec. 151 (1) with the proviso clearly show that no such notice shall be issued unless the Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of notice which means that the satisfaction of the Commissioner is paramount for which the least that is expected from the Commissioner is application of mind and due diligence before according sanction to the reasons recorded by the AO
It is also evident from the balance sheet of the Appellant Co., its investments in shares were only in two subsidiary companies. Such investments in subsidiary companies were made by the Appellant to acquire/promote the subsidiary companies which are in the media business and were not made purely for earning dividend income. Neither any dividend income has been earned since the time such investments were made in the shares of the subsidiary companies. Hence, such investments cannot be considered for disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D
It is manifest that u/s 50C, the value adopted by the stamp-valuation authority is deemed as the consideration for computation of capital gain. However, such valuation adopted by the stamp-valuation authority should be in respect of the transfer by the assessee, of the capital assets. This enhancement was beyond the control of the assessee (seller). It is also not the case of the revenue, that the buyer has given more than the consideration that has been accepted by the parties where they executed the agreement to sale.
On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person. It is…
(i) The DRP held that the determination of ALP is of no relevance in deciding the issue of suppressed sale by the assessee and went on to estimate the value of suppressed sale on account of difference between the value…