GST, just 3 small letters but its impact is more than depth of ocean. As we all know GST was introduced with lots of celebrations by Govt., there are many unanswered questions which needs way. Is common man satisfied with GST or facing trouble ? Are business class welcoming GST with open arms or hesitating […]
On the ground of investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife, in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. and other judgments of different High Courts,the word used is assessee has to invest it is not specified that it is to be in the name of assessee.
Article discusses GST vis-a-vis Real Estate Builders, GST vis-a-vis Civil Engineering Construction Contractors , GST vis-a-vis Real Estate Builders and Civil Engineering Construction Contractors and Direct Taxes vis-a-vis construction industry.
When assessee failed to file any reliable evidence or documents, which could establish that she was a sub-broker and cash deposited in her bank account belong to her clients, then action of treating the entire cash deposits as per section 69 as unexplained investment of the assessee was held to be fully justified.
Where assessee paid interest on term loan which had entirely been used for purpose of purchasing the assets for purpose of business which were hypothecated to bank and it had sufficient interest-free funds to take care of advances, the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowable.
A bench comprising Vijay Pal Rao (JM) and Vikram Singh Yadav (AM) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently declared that Interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act can be levied on ground of non-payment of advance tax in respect of Alternative Minimum Tax.
Section 194J would have application only when the technology or technical knowledge, experiences/ skills of a person is made available to others which can be further used by him for its own purpose and not where by using technical systems, services are rendered to others.
Amount received by assessee form a closely held company in the guise of an agreement having no existence in the eyes of law, was to be assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in assessee’s hands on account of his substantial shareholding.
Merely for the reason that new residential house property has been purchased by assessee in wife name, same cannot be basis for denial of deduction claimed u/s 54F.
Assessment order shows that it is only basing on the revised assessment, the assessment was completed. Only reason stated by the AO for initiation of penalty was that no revision could be made in case of belated filing of the original return of wealth.
