Corpus fund which is meant for specific purpose to meet out capital expenditure could not be part of annual receipts of educational institution, even if no registration u/s 12AA have been granted.
Section 50C is a measure provided to bridge the gap as it was found that the assessee were not correctly declaring the full value of consideration or in other words resorting to the practice of under valuation. Further, the decision of Special Bench in the case of ITO vs. United Marines Academy (supra) has made it clear that section 50C will be applicable on the sale value of depreciable asset.
If appellant explained source of loans received by it and duly discharges the onus cast on him under section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961 than despite the fact that lender may have raised bogus share capital to advance funds to appellant does not mean that loan received by appellant can be treated as unexplained income under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Relative explained in Explanation to section 56(2)(vi) of the Act includes relatives and as the assessee received gift from his HUF, which is a group of relatives, the gift received by the assessee from the HUF should be interpreted to mean that the gift was received from the relatives therefore the same is not taxable under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act, we hold accordingly.
Mere charging of fee from members or non-members for rendering services like training, conducting seminars would not ipso facto lead to denial of exemption. The dominant object of the assessee remains charitable and the aforesaid activities are only incidental to the main activity of the assessee. Also, the activities of the assessee are benefiting the […]
Under the provisions of section 292B, certain acts are not to be treated as invalid by reason of mistake or defect or omission either in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings. In other words, notice cannot be invalidated by reason of any mistake such as one occurred in the present case i.e. mentioning section 153A instead of 153C.
The only mistake on the part of AO was in mentioning section 153A, instead of section 153C. If this mistake was not allowed to be cured, the very purpose and object of enacting section 292B would be defeated as impugned notice in substance and effect, was in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act.
A. Godwin Maria Visuvasam Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) Merely furnishing of confirmation letter by a creditor, as it again well settled, does not would at best only establish identity of the creditors. There was nothing on record establishing creditworthiness of the creditors and/or genuineness of impugned loans and advances in the instant case. Therefore, AO […]
Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan In CIT Vs. Bank Rajasthan Ltd (supra) and had held that broken period interest is allowable as deduction. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of broken period interest of Rs.16,97,027/-. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed.
These are appeals filed by the assessee-firm directed against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Gulbarga, dated 29-1-2016 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
