If AO was not satisfied regarding transaction relating to the cash deposited by partner whose identity was not in doubt and assessee had furnished all the relevant documents, then addition could have been made in the hands of said partner and not in the hands of the assessee.
Many petty payments were made in cash and it was also not ascertainable whether payments attract disallowance under section 40A(3). Clearly, assessee could not establish genuineness of the expenses, therefore, AO was justified in computing income on estimate basis.
Development fee payment was not optional or voluntary on the part of the students but it was compulsory charge in the nature of fee for studying and continuing study in the institutions of the assessee, therefore, development fee received by assessee could not be classified as capital in nature for specific purpose or part of corpus fund of assessee trust. It was part of the current receipt and partook the character of other fee charged by assessee on account of tuition fee, term fee, etc.
A. FAQs on My Saved Application Q.1 What is a saved application? Ans: Any/All applications you have initiated and are in various stages of completion but have not yet been submitted are saved applications. These application will be available for updation and submission upto 15 days on the GST Portal. Example: New registration applications, Amendment […]
Overview of steps in the ITBA Assessment Module for passing assessment orders, including income computation, feedback, and order generation.
Synthite Industrial Ltd. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) Admittedly, the assessee purchased the land which was a rubber estate. The land was purchased to utilize it for the non-agricultural purpose of expansion of its factory. The rubber trees in the land were slaughter tapped which is a process that immediately precedes the cutting and removal […]
Depreciation on right to collect toll being infrastructure and not on toll road, where cost incurred for development and construction of infrastructure facility was a right in nature of intangible asset falling within purview of section 32(1)(ii). Order of AO in amortizing expenditure over period of facility and allowing the same was reversed. AO was, thus, directed to allow claim of assessee vis-a-vis depreciation on intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii).
(Updated as on July 14, 2017) Q.1 What is the Banking Ombudsman Scheme? Ans: The Banking Ombudsman Scheme is an expeditious and inexpensive forum for bank customers for resolution of complaints relating to certain services rendered by banks. The Banking Ombudsman Scheme is introduced under Section 35 A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by […]
Where assessee, under a bona fide belief that UID kit being a part of computer claimed depreciation at 60%. Tribunal held that disallowance of claim would not result in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 6/2017-Union Territory Tax New Delhi, the 30th June, 2017 G.S.R. …..(E).— In pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 22, read with section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules […]
