TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) by the appellant against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench (for short "the Tribunal") dated 18.07.2008 passed in ITA No. 196/R/07. 3. This appeal is admitted vide order dated 14.02.2011 for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the deduction under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the income of Rs.55,00,000/- declared during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act? (B) Whether on the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee has disclosed Rs.55 lakhs as income which was earned during the course of its business activities. The CIT(Appeals), therefore, treated such income as business income. 4.3 However, the CIT(Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the unexplained expenditure admitted by the assessee amounting to Rs. 4,33,397/- which was added under Section 69(C) of the Act. 4.4 Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the respondent - revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant - assessee preferred cross objections for confirming the addition of Rs. 4,33,397/- to be unexplained expenditure under Section 69(C) as well as not granting relief of remuneration to the partners under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remuneration to the partners on account of excess income declared by the assessee during the course of survey. We agreed with the CIT(A) that his is a business income but we do not agree with assessee is entitled for remuneration on this excess declared income by the assessee in the return." 4.6 Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue preferred Tax Appeal No. 1861 of 2008 which was admitted by the order dated 27.10.2009, however, the same was disposed of on 15.07.2016 on the ground of low tax effect. Therefore, we are now, concerned with the present tax appeal which is filed by the assessee on dismissal of the Cross Objections. 5 Learned advocate Mr. S.N. Divatia appearing for the appellant - assessee submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss against income under any other head. After setting off losses against the income under the same head, if the net result is still a loss, the assessee can set off the said loss under Section 71 of the Act against income of the same year under any other head, except for losses which arise under the head "capital gains". The income tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total of the income classified and chargeable under the various heads. Section 14 has classified the different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not a collection of distinct tax levied separately on each head of income and it is not an aggregate of various taxes comput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one of the decisions the Legislative Scheme emanating from conjoint reading of provisions of Section 14 & 56 of the Act have been considered. The Apex Court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P(Ltd)., (supra) has dealt with this very issue while deciding the treatment to be given to a transaction of surrender of tenancy right. The earlier decision of the Apex Court commencing from case of United Commercial Bank Ltd v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 688 (SC) have been considered by the Apex Court and, hence, it is not necessary to repeat the same. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the ....