Given the definition of ‘lease or tenancy’ and the definition of ‘rent’ as appearing in Section 194 I Explanation, unless the payment is with reference to the use of any specified land or a building, payment made for availing of the services as in the nature landing or parking, as available in the present case before us, cannot be construed as ‘rent’.
LIST OF FIRST 25 TOP RANKERS WHO HAVE PASSED ALL PAPERS OF FOUNDATION PROGRAMME, EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME AND PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMME EXAMINATIONS WITHOUT EXEMPTION IN ANY PAPER, IN ONE SITTING, IN JUNE , 2012 :
Thus, the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new plant and machinery in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right. Law does not prohibit that balance 50% will not be allowed in succeeding year.
In the present case, it is not even the case of the Revenue that shares were sold at a price lower than the market rate. If that be so, the question of inflating the loss by transferring the shares to group company would not arise. Under ordinary circumstances, it is always open to the assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on to certain bunch of shares or to sell the same to avoid further loss,
In the present case, the Assessing Officer, as a matter of fact, came to the conclusion that no amount was actually paid on account of goodwill. This is a factual finding. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’, for short] has come to the conclusion that the authorised representatives had filed copies of the Orders of the High Court ordering amalgamation of the above two Companies; that the assets and liabilities of M/s. YSN Shares and Securities Private Limited were transferred to the assessee for a consideration;
The reliance placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (supra) is well placed as the expenditure incurred by the assessee has direct nexus with its income generating apparatus. Respectfully following various judgments mentioned and relied on by CIT(A) we see no infirmity in his order, which is upheld. The assessee’s cross objection being only in support of CIT(A) order, is rendered infructuous.
A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word “particulars” used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made.
The provisions of section 54EC do not make any reference to the assessment year in which the investment is to be made but only lays down a condition of 6 months period of time after the date of transfer of the capital asset.
The assessee computed the gain from sale of flats as long term capital gain taking holding period from the date of development-cum-sale agreement. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the claim of the assessee and has computed capital gain as short term capital gain as the assessee had taken possession of the flats only on 24-2-2005 and therefore, in his view the flats were held only from that date.
The preparation of vegetarian food items and selling the same was mainly for popularizing the vegetarian food habits and in this way the assessee is engaged in promoting the vegetarianism among the people so that they can change their living habits and take the necessary steps for the better of humanity, which is undoubtedly a charitable object of the assessee. The major portion of the income received by the assessee was donated to ISKCON which is a Public Charitable Trust of worldwide recognition and reputation and any donation from one charitable trust to another charitable trust constitute, application of income for the charitable purposes.
