Notification No. 61/2015 – Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income-tax Rules, 1962, namely:-
SET OFF OF LOSS FROM ONE SOURCE AGAINST INCOME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME (INTER SOURCE). SET OFF OF LOSS FROM ONE HEAD AGAINST THE INCOME FROM ANOTHER (INTER HEAD)
In the impugned year the blood relation is not necessary for the gift to be a genuine gift, but the relationship matters a lot. In all the probabilities the gift is found to be genuine as the donors have explained the source of gift, copy of bank accounts, income tax return.
The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Assessee and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. MKJ Enterprises which held that factoring charges were not interest and as such, provisions of TDS are not applicable.
The assessee is a dealer of sarees and AO while framing the assessment disallowed karigar /embroidery charges by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the Act.
The Assessing Officer while computing the total wealth of the assessee added the value of the let-out properties i.e. godown and offices in the total wealth of the assessee for the purpose of calculating the wealth-tax.
In the present case it appears that the Commissioner has assumed that in respect of all the clearances, the appellant has collected Excise Duty. If the department makes the allegation that the appellant had collected money representing Excise Duty
The assessee company was engaged in the business of real estate development. Vide order of Hon’ble High Court, 19 Group companies engaged in similar business were merged in the assessee company w.e.f 01.04.1999.
The present case is related to search & seizure action carried out in case of Sh. S.K. Gupta (‘third party’) in respect of companies and other business entities which were controlled by him or owned by him or different individuals connected with him.
However, where the fundamental transaction is shown to be a sham transaction, the same cannot necessarily be accepted as genuine merely because a broker’s confirmation and invoices have been produced. Given the facts of this case, the decisions referred to by CIT(A)
