It is pertinent to note that the assessee has actually received the salary from his previous employers after deducting the notice period as per the job agreement with them. Therefore, in our considered view, the actual salary received by the assessee is only taxable.
Any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would always partake the character of agricultural income itself. The consideration stated in the Registered Sale Deed was agricultrual income. Likewise, the on money also should be treated as agricultural income.
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.
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.
In this case basic issue to be decided was about the interest payment made by the partnership firm to the partners in light of the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules.
When the assessee has been alleging that he was only extending facility to his client for delivery of lignite and coal, he has not acted as an agent between client and truck owners. Therefore, in our opinion, merely on assumption basis, the assessee should not be burdened with tax liability.
Interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act
