Notification No. 8/2011- Income Tax It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Kelkar Education Trust, Mumbai has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from assessment year 2010-11 and onwards in the category of ‘Other Institution’, partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions namely:—
The anti-dumping duty imposed shall be levied for a period of five years (unless revoked, superseded or amended earlier) from the date of imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, that is, the 23rd March, 2010, and shall be payable in Indian currency.
Whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/15/2010-DGAD, dated the 1st December,2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1 dated the 1st December,2010
The onus lying on the assessee to prove the nature and source of the credit is not discharged if the creditors in whose names amount is standing in the books of the assessee denied to have any knowledge of such credits. It is for the assessee to bring to the A.O. Shri R.N. Parikh and furnish necessary evidence that in fact, it was he who was using the accounts of the two persons and paying the money to the assessee on their behalf.
No action can be taken under the section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year
Where the revenue has failed to establish before the Court that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the exercise of the power to re-open the assessment beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year would fail to fulfill the statutory condition precedent to a valid exercise of the power to re-open an assessment beyond a period of four years
The work that the respondents perform is in the nature of a creative art and their work is neither subject to an order required from the Art Director nor from any of the artists. In performing their work, they have to bring to their work, their artistic ability, talent and a sense of perception for the purpose of production of drama involving in the course of such work, the application of the correct technique and the selection of the cast, the play, the manner of presentation, the light and effects and so on. In effect, the work they do is creative art which only a person with an artistic talent and requisite technique can manage. To call such a person, a skilled or a manual worker is altogether inappropriate.
The Assessee for the relevant year filed return declaring “Nil” income. He case though processed under Section 143(1) was selected for scrutiny. The Assessee had shown the gross total income for the relevant year as Rs.6,92,453/- and deducted therefrom the amount applied for charitable purposes to the extent of Rs.27,28,001/-. The Assessee had made application of income by donation of Rs.26,66,000/- comprising of donation of Rs.25 lacs to BLB Trust as corpus donation and Rs.1,66,000/- to others. The source of the balance amount over and above the income of Rs.6, 92,453/- was from FDR encashment, MIP units a
For arriving at the above conclusion, strength is drawn from the decision of Mumbai `L’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of UCB India P. Ltd. v. ACIT [121 ITD 131 (Mum.)] where it was held that section 92C read with Rule 10B(1)(e) deals with Transactions Net Margins Method (TNMM) and it refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise fro
Ingredient about a bona fide claim is that assessee should be able to show or prove some intermediate steps in whole process of transaction; if it is not able to give evidence in respect of any step in whole process of transaction then it can be said that explanation furnished by assessee is not bona fide and is nothing but a bald claim for purposes of section 271(1)(c).
