Navin Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court)
S. 158BE: The search
ends, and the period of limitation begins, only on the drawing up of the formal
panchnama to record the ending of the search. The argument that the search is
concluded on the date of the search itself if nothing is seized thereafter is
not acceptable Ordinarily an authorization for search is valid until the same has been executed. In order to avoid any controversy as to when was the authorization executed the legislature has provided in the aforesaid explanation that the authorization shall be deemed to have been executed on conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama. Therefore, the law insists upon a panchnama for the purpose of formal recording that the search is at an end. Without such recording the search once initiated does not come to an end. We are unable to find any justification for the view that search comes to an end immediately after the search has been concluded for the day
Shri Basant Bansal vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
S. 143(3)/153A:
Addition made solely on the basis of a disclosure and without any incriminating
material is not sustainable if facts show that disclosure was under duress. CBDT
Instruction dated 10.03.2003relied upon A perusal of the CBDT instruction reveals that even Board is aware of such laconic disclosures and expects its officers to rely on incriminating evidence. Thus CBDT also is not in favor of search assessments being based only on such disclosures; it wants them to be based on incriminating material. In view the facts, circumstances, CBDT instruction and various case laws relied on by the assessee we are unable to uphold the additions solely on the basis of disclosure which doesn’t meet the eye and have been held by us to involuntary
Natural Gas Company Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
(i) S. 48: Interest
paid on moneys borrowed to acquire assets cannot be treated as the 'cost of
acquisition' of the asset, (ii) S. 41(1): Unclaimed liabilities are deemed to
have been remitted/ ceased and are taxable in the year of discovery by AO The interest cost is toward the retention of the borrowing and, concomitantly, the retention or the holding of the asset under reference, i.e., is a function of the holding period. It is, thus, rightly described as a holding cost or a period cost, depending upon how one may look at it. This difference is again of relevance in-as-much as the asset may be sold/realized without the repayment of the debt, so that the interest cost continues independent of the asset. Again, the debt may be repaid/liquidated, extinguishing the interest cost, while the holding of the asset continues. That is, even the holding cost relationship is not automatic or follows as a natural corollary. The two, i.e., the interest cost and cost of the asset, are in any case independent of each other
ITO vs. Bhartiya Vidya Mandir Trust (ITAT Chandigarh)
S. 11(1)(a):
Charitable institutions are eligible to a blanket deduction of 15% of the gross
receipts without being required to satisfy any condition The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.L.N Rao Charitable Trust reported in 216 ITR 697(SC) clearly held that there is a blanket exemption with regard to the 25% (now 15%) of gross receipts as per second part of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. This exemption of 15% is not dependent on any other condition except that the trust or society should be registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The only issue to be examined here is whether the provisions of section 11(1) (a) and 11(2) have been since amended and if so, whether the aforesaid decision would apply to the amended provisions also?
India International Centre vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 2(15)/11: Before
any activity can be branded as being in the nature of trade or commerce, the AO
has to demonstrate the intention of parties backed with facts and figures of
carrying out activities with profit motive. Mere surplus from any activity
which has been undertaken to achieve the dominant object does not imply that
the same is run with profit motive. The intention has to be gathered from
circumstances which compelled the carrying on the activity The dominant object of the assessee is definitely for the well being of public at large by organizing various seminars for the welfare of people by disseminating knowledge in various fields in order to uplift the social consciousness of the society at large. Before any activity can be branded as being in the nature of trade or commerce, the AO has to demonstrate the intention of parties Backed with facts and figures of carrying out activities with profit motive. Mere surplus from any activity, which undisputedly has been undertaken to achieve the dominant object, does not imply that the same is run with profit motive. The intention has to be gathered from circumstances which compelled the carrying on an activity
Association of State Road Transport vs. CIT (ITAT
Delhi)
Scope of proviso to
s. 2(15) restricting deduction for charitable institutions explained The expression “trade”, “commerce” or “business”, as occurring in the first proviso of section 2(15) of the Act, must be read in the context of the intent in purported of Section 2(15) of the Act and cannot be interpreted to mean any activity which is carried on in an organized manner. the first proviso to section 2(15) of the act does not purported to exclude entities which are essentially for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a consideration or a fee and the object of introducing first proviso is to exclude organizations which are carrying on regular business from the scope of charitable purpose
No comments:
Post a Comment