When the amount which was deposited in the bank was not an amount due to members and it was not the liability of the society to the members then the interest earned from the deposits in the bank was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P (1) as well as 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Since advertising agency only acting as an intermediary between assessee radio broadcasting station and the advertiser, raised bills to the advertiser on net amount charged by the assessee, charging separate commission from the advertiser, deduction from the gross amount was in the nature of discount only and not commission, therefore, liability to deduct tax under section 194H did not get attracted.
Notice issued under Section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity to contest the same.
In a significant ruling, the ITAT Delhi held that approval by the Commissioner of Income Tax is not a mandatory requirement to allow deduction of contribution towards EPF under section 38(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has framed the scheme under the Employees provident Fund Act, 1952.
Challenging the order dated 3-5-2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, the assessing officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, deriving income from house property, filed its return of income on 18-10-2007, declaring loss of Rs. 1.5 crores. The assessing officer completed the assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, on 4-12-2009, determining its income at Rs. (-)9.46 lakhs.
The Delhi ITAT, in a recent ruling, held that imposing penalty by quoting wrong section would not itself make the entire proceedings invalid if the assessee had not raised any objection during pre-assessment stage and has co-operated with the proceedings.
if relevant details of address or PAN Identity are furnished to the Department along with the copies of shareholder register, share application form, share transfer register etc, it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable explanation by assessee.
Where AO had only considered the discrepancy regarding gross receipts but did not carry out any inquiry in regard to the nexus between business receipts and cash deposits which was the specific direction of the Tribunal, Commissioner was justified in making revision order since the order was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 14,36,653 which was made by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I. T. Act by treating the purchase are genuine without appreciating the fact that the notices u/s 133(6) issued to the parties were returned unnerved as addressee was not available at the given address.
Issue before us is as to whether the assessee trust, which is for the sole benefit of an individual, will be entitled to deduction u/s. 54F or not, when its status is that of A.O.P. As per Section 54F the benefits of this section is available to individual or Hindu undivided family (HUF). Hon’ble jurisdictional […]
