Non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be sole basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that a transaction of purchase is bogus
1st proviso to Sec.68 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1-4.2013 was only prospective in operation, we are of the view that since section 68 covers `any sum credited’ in the books without any exception
Deduction u/s 54 of the Act is also available even if the land, which was appurtenant to the residential house, is sold and it is not necessary that the whole of the residential house should be sold because the legislature has used the words or which is distinctive in nature.
The assessee is a charitable trust and has challenged the confirmation of the order of the AO where he disallowed the accumulation of the 15% even when the income was allowed u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act. The AO observed that if the trust is not left with surplus and there is deficit, then there can be no accumulation made. He further stated that accumulation or setting apart of 15% of income has been allowed by virtue of provision of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, when assessee is unable to spend the entire amount and where the entire amount has been spent, there is no surplus left that can be accumulated.
It cannot be denied that expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of developing housing project and not allowable by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) would ultimately go to increase assessee’s profit from such business and profit as computed after making the dis allowance would, therefore, qualify for deduction under section 10A.
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee claim for its exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short BC the Act CC). Appeal has been filed with a delay of ten days. Condonation petition has been filed. Delay is condoned and appeal admitted.
A partnership firm purchased property from NRI but failed to deduct TDS u/s 195. The ADIT (International Taxation) raised demand comprising tax and interest by issuing notice to one of the partners of the firm in his individual capacity.
ITAT held that that the payment made by the assessee to ICC amounting to Rs. 4.56 crore as `Rights fee’ is not in the nature of `Royalty’ or `Fees for technical services’ covered u/s 9(1)(vi) or 9(1(vii) of the Act and as such the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on this payment. Ex consequenti, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not attracted.
It is very strange that FAA,being a judicial authority,has held that non providing opportunity of cross examination would not vitiate the assessment proceedings.If the AO/assessee wants to rely upon the statements of someone it is their duty to prove the truthfulness of such statements.
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) on common grounds. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off through this consolidated order.
