The language used in section 10(23C)(iiiad)speaks about existence of solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit if the annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed limit. However, if the aforesaid chart/income is analysed, we find that a huge abnormal profit has been created/earned by the assessee and the amounts are definitely beyond the prescribed limit.
However, in the case of a non-competition agreement or covenant, the advantage is a restricted one, in point of time. It does not necessarily – and not in the facts of this case, confer any exclusive right to carry-on the primary business activity.
Inasmuch as the department has received the amount due from the appellant quoting of wrong registration number in the concerned challans is only a technical error which can be rectified at the department’s end itself.
In the present case, both, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have found that the transactions in question are neither in the nature of loans or deposits. Under the circumstances, the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act would not be applicable. Consequently, the question of contravention of such provisions attracting penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Act would also not arise. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference.
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.
