Get all latest income tax news, act, article, notification, circulars, instructions, slab on Taxguru.in. Check out excel calculators budget 2017 ITR, black money, tax saving tips, deductions, tax audit on income tax.
Income Tax : Bombay High Court rules on tax evasion by Buniyad Chemicals, addressing unexplained credits, money laundering, and regulatory acti...
Income Tax : Understand the New Income Tax Bill 2025, key policy changes, structural revisions, and interpretation methods. Learn how these upd...
Income Tax : Article explores effectiveness and influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) on FDI flows with particular emphasis within ...
Income Tax : Learn about deductions allowed under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for income from other sources, including family pensi...
Income Tax : This blog explores the implications of this tax policy, the distinction between games of skill and chance, the applicability of Ta...
Income Tax : CBDT invites stakeholder suggestions on simplifying Income Tax Rules and Forms under the Income Tax Bill, 2025. Submit feedback vi...
Income Tax : India's direct tax collections for FY 2024-25 show a 13.13% net growth, with gross collections up by 16.15% and significant gains ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues clarification on Circular 01/2025, stating it applies only to the Principal Purpose Test in certain DTAAs and does not...
Income Tax : Corporate tax collections increased post-rate cuts. No specific tax incentives for MNCs, but new measures aim to support electroni...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Bill 2025 aims to simplify tax laws with no major policy changes. It enhances clarity, reduces ambiguities, and ali...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses ITO's appeal against Sun Gold Capital Ltd due to low tax effect under CBDT Circular 09/2024. Key issues i...
Income Tax : Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad's ruling in Rakesh Saxena Vs PCIT. The tribunal upheld the revision order, treating VRS benefits as tax...
Income Tax : Madras High Court quashes assessment order citing lack of proper notice and violation of natural justice for a non-resident taxpay...
Income Tax : Bombay HC quashed Trent Ltd.’s tax refund adjustment under Section 245 of the IT Act, citing a violation of natural justice. Rev...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune dismisses revenue appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s decision that a tax reassessment based on a cancelled PAN was invalid....
Income Tax : CBDT allows data sharing with Delhi's IT Dept. for social welfare scheme identification under Income Tax Act Section 138. Read the...
Income Tax : CBDT issues FAQs on revised guidelines for compounding offences under Income Tax Act, 1961. Covers filing procedures, fees, compet...
Income Tax : Finance Ministry specifies Power Finance Corporation Ltd.'s ten-year zero coupon bond with Rs. 49,546 discount, for Income-tax Act...
Income Tax : Learn about high-risk transaction case verification, assessment, and proceedings under Sections 148/148A on the Insight and ITBA p...
Income Tax : Learn about high-risk CRIU/VRU case verification, assessment, and proceedings under Sections 148/148A on the Insight and ITBA port...
Deemed payment could not be treated as actual payment to qualify for deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, we do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the assessee herein that depositing the amount in a bank, even if it be in a separate account, would satisfy the provisions of Section 43 B as actual payment. Reading the decision in Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. (supra) along with the decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. (supra), one can only observe that the law declared in both the above judgments are one and the same, in the sense, that both the decisions held that under Section 43 B only actual payment and not any notional or deemed payment that would be relevant for considering the deduction.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during course of the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has received three residential flats at Hill Park from its sister concern M/s. British India Steam Navigation Co. (BISNCL) which was capitalized in the schedule of fixed assets at Rs. 79,03,460/-.
Admittedly, assessee has produced a register, which contained payments to various labourers. Admittedly, this register does not contain the addresses of the labourers nor it contains revenue stamp, nor is it signed by the Labour Department, no PF has also been deducted. Does all these wrongs in its entirety or individuality make the expenses incurred by the assessee deniable? Can this defect be held to be changing the mode of payment of the assessee from one mode to another? Here we would answer ‘no’.
The question then, would be; on facts what is discernible? As noticed above, every loan granted to a subsidiary company was preceded by the receipt of money by the assessee as loan from other entities. Undisputedly, even going by the assessee’s contention that the loans to subsidiary companies were from its internal resources; if such interest-free loans were not made, then at least to that extent the assessee need not have borrowed from other entities.
Apprehension of the assessees that they have been made liable to pay a portion of tax u/s 179 of the Act, is unwarranted and misconceived. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, no person can be made liable to pay any tax for himself or on behalf of any other entity for which he has been associated unless a specific order is passed in the matter. In the present case, no such order u/s 179 of the Act has been passed.
The Ld DR argued that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the exemption u/s 10B of the Act as the assessee had not filed prescribed audit report and had got software developed from outside. He further argued that assessee had not filed certified copies of invoices.
Business of the taxpayer is banking and the business connection between the tenant and taxpayer has nothing to do with banking operation carried on by the taxpayer. Further, the Kerala High Court in Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 568 has also taken a similar view. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the taxpayer is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of rental income.
It is settled position of law that where any issue is debatable, it cannot be corrected u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 is relevant wherein an action taken by Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act was found to be illegal.
Merely because the Assessing Officer invoked section 50C(2) and adopted guideline value to be the actual sale consideration and made addition in the assessee’s income automatically become a case attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Assessing Officer on fact after having examined accounts and accompanying documents found that total funds available with the assessee on 31st March, 1999 was Rs. 1,44,82,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 22.75 lakhs was given as loans as on 31st March, 1999 representing 15.70% of the funds available with the assessee.
