Join our webinar on Faceless Tax Assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn concepts, challenges, and solutions from expert CA Hari Agarwal, FCA.
Mere possession of money, bullion, jewelery or such valuable article or thing per-se would not be sufficient to enable the competent officer to form a belief that the same had not been or would not be disclosed for the purpose of the Act. What is required is some concrete material to enable a reasonable person to form such a belief.
Though Division Bench has specifically made an observation to provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, that has not been complied by the parties. More particularly the petitioner in proving his claims and virtually the claim is made only on the basis of the typed script and no original material is produced and the parties are not at all examined.
As regards the contention that in any event the service rendered by a commission agent is a service received in relation to the assessee’s activity relating to business, it may be noted that the includes part of the definition of ‘input service’ includes ‘activities relating to the business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security’.
The Income of LLP will be charged to tax in the hands of the LLP only and not in the hands of individual partners. Remuneration to partners will be taxed as “Income from Business & Profession” and share of profit in the hands of the partner is exempt from tax u/s 10(2A). The LLP is allowed to get deduction of remuneration paid to the partners subject to the maximum of limit prescribed u/s 40(b).
Conduct of ACIT10(1) Mumbai as well as CIT10 Mumbai is highly deplorable. Once the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner was transferred by the CIT10 Mumbai from ACIT10(1) Mumbai to DCIT Circle1(2) Pune by order dated 22.11.2011 it was totally improper on the part of ACIT10(1) Mumbai to request the CIT¬10, Mumbai to pass a corrigendum order with a view to circumvent the jurisdictional issue.
No doubt in a normal situation, so far as matters capable of two views being taken will be outside the ambit of section 154. However, right now, we are dealing with interpretation of section 10(10C) and so far as this interpretation is concerned, law laid down by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is that an interpretation in favour of the assessee is to be adopted.
Appellant had sought higher deduction of tax at source by annexing TDS certificates and not reflecting the income as shown in the TDS certificates in its return of income. The Tribunal on consideration of all facts had come to the conclusion that remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer would not serve any purpose, as the appellant had consciously claimed credit of tax deduction on the basis of the TDS certificates and even enclosed the same along with the return of income, but failed to show it, as a part of the income.
Though the order of the AO was erroneous, the same was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as no part of the capital gain became taxable because of loss of exemption u/s.11(1A) of the Act. Since the order sought to be revised u/s.263 of the Act was erroneous but not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, jurisdiction u/s.263 could not have been invoked by the CIT. We hold accordingly and quash the order u/s.263 of the Act. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed with the above directions and computation.
AO and the CIT(A) did not make any effort to verify the confirmations, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors in question and they also ignored the fact that the transaction of cash credits received and its repayment were made through bank and we also hold that the authorities below did not bring any incriminating material or evidence against the assessee trust to establish that the amount shown in the balance sheet as cash credits amounting to Rs.1,70,000 actually belonged or was owned by the assessee trust itself.
It cannot be understood by the Court how such glaring lapses can be casually explained away as ‘inadvertence’ and ‘oversight’. It is the bounden duty of the Official Liquidator to ensure and carry out a proper, detailed investigation regarding the properties in question, especially pertaining to the location of the immovable properties, survey numbers and the accurate measurements.
