Amount received by the assessee on account of reimbursement which has been received over and above the amount of FTS cannot be included and taxed as part of FTS.
It has been held that ‘even though the expenditure is not admissible for the computation of the total income either as a bad debt or as an expenditure wholly incurred for the purpose of business, still, it can be allowed as an expenditure as a trading loss if it arises directly from carrying on the business and is incidental to the business.
Transfer Pricing Officer has selected RPM as most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price of the transaction of sale of programmes and film rights to ATL in contrast to the TNM method selected by the assessee. The first controversy is as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in selecting the RPM as most appropriate method.
In the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off
These cross appeals by the Revenue and by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-4,Chenaai dated 8-2-2016.
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-4, Chennai dated 19-8-2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The only grievance in this appeal of assessee is non-granting of exemption under section 54 of the Act in respect of sale of the residential property.
Where Assessing Officer issued two notices for imposition of penalty namely, one u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and second u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAA in cases where search u/s 132 of the Act has been initiated, then such notices issued by AO are untenable in law.
Mere defect in the notice u/s 274 do not vitiates the penalty proceedings and no prejudice was caused to the assessee by non- marking of appropriate clause. Addition for Bogus purchases cannot be made under Section 69C as ‘unexplained expenditure’ if purchase are duly disclosed and payments are made through banking channels. The fact that the sellers are not traceable and the assessee surrendered the bogus purchases does not justify levy of penalty.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad bench, in the case of DRS Warehousing (South) Vs. ITO, held that the interest on FDs earned during the pre-operative period is taxable as ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provisions of Income Tax Act.
Sub-clause (i) of section 54 providing for the exemption does not require that the whole payment for purchase of new asset should be made. In other words even if an assessee acquires a new house on credit i.e. the payment for which may be made in future, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of deduction under section 54 because what is required by sub-clause (i) is that cost of new house should be equal to or more than the amount of long-term capital gain.
