According to section 50 of Income tax act if an assessee has sold a capital asset forming part of block of assets (building, machinery etc) on which the depreciation has been allowed under Income Tax Act, the income arising from such capital asset is treated as short term capital gain.
Where there were two funds one which was already taxed and other had not and there were remittances during the accounting year for a certain sum, the source of which was not indicated then the presumption was that the remittances should have been from the fund which had already suffered tax. Thus, assessee was entitled to the telescoping benefit of the income surrendered during the year to the cash deposited in the bank account as the surrendered income which was invested in hundis were received back in cash and were duly accounted in the books of accounts.
Insurance service provided by Deposit Insurance Corporation to banks was an input service and CENVAT credit of service tax paid for this service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation could be availed by the banks for rendering output services.
Modern Malleables Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Addition made u/s. 68 only on the basis of two statements which could not stand the scrutiny of law, was not justified and therefore, the addition could not be sustained as per law. Held: AO got information from the Investigation Wing pursuant to search operation conducted at […]
The issue under consideration is whether sale of agricultural land after conversion taxing under capital gain or under business income? ITAT direct the A.O. to treat the property on sale of land as capital gains and given the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee U/s 54F of the Act.
Addition in case of bogus purchases was required to be made only to the extent of lower GP declared by assessee on bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases. Thus, no addition was warranted in case of assessee as GROSS PROFIT declared by assessee in respect of alleged bogus purchases was more than the GROSS PROFIT declared in the normal purchases.
S. 45(3) and S. 45(4) were brought in to the statute book to deem pooling of assets by partners in to the firm and distribution of assets by the firm to partners on dissolution or otherwise, as transfers for tax purposes with a view to block certain escape routes for avoiding capital gains tax.
Condition for allowance under section 37 – Such expenditure should not be covered under the specific section i.e. sections 30 to 36. Expenditure should not be of capital nature. The expenditure should be incurred during the previous year. The expenditure should not be of personal nature. The expenditure should have been incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession. The business should be commenced.
Under Section 194B of the Income Tax Act, 30 per cent tax is deducted on any prize money in excess of Rs 10,000 and other winnings from games, lotteries etc. This is deducted at source (TDS). A Three per cent education cess is payable on the tax amount.
Where the assessee transferred accumulated funds to unregistered trust then it was clear violation of Explanation to section 11(2) and clause (d) in sub-section (3) of section 11 and therefore same cannot be treated as applied for charitable purpose. Amount so transferred was thus liable to addition in the hands of the assessee-trust.
