The Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Collection of donation by Educational Institution/ Society is not ‘Capitation Fee.
These are appeals filed by the assessee-company directed against the assessment orders dated 24.12.2014, 17.12.2015 and 30.11.2016 for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore.
Amendment to Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective with effect from 1st April, 2005 as held by various High Courts.
Thus, the concept of Mutuality postulates that all the contributors to the common fund must be entitled to participate in the surplus and that all the participators in the surplus are contributors to the common fund. It is in this sense that the law postulates that there must be a complete identity between the contributors and the participators.
Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the assessee is not required to explain source of source of the fund gets buttressed by the amendment made in section 68 with effect from 01.04.2013, which empowers the AO to examine source of source in case of share application money from 01.04.2013 and no other cases prior to that.
Respondents should not have appropriated the refund they received from the Income- Tax Department. There is nothing wrong in claiming the refund. The problem is in utilising the refund received.
However, the relevant certificate from the competent authority has not been submitted by the assessee as required under law for determination of the distance of land in question from Municipality etc.
It is an admitted position that the assessee treated the amount of subsidy as a capital receipt, but, did not reduce it from the value of fixed assets and eventually claimed depreciation on the higher value of assets without reduction of such subsidy. To deal with such a situation, the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 1-4-2016, […]
Assessee is regularly in the business of purchase-sale of equity shares, share transactions entered during the year were in large number, funds were borrowed for the purpose of trading, no separate account has been maintained for the investment portfolio and all the transactions of purchase sale raised are only for one scrip namely Suraj Stainless Steel Ltd.
There is sufficient indication from the notes on files that the invocation of the revisionary powers under Section 74A of the DVAT Act was to delay making the refund which was overdue for over six years. The Court is left no manner of doubt is that this was plainly an abuse of power vested in the Commissioner which calls for disapproval in strongest terms.
