ITAT, Bangalore held that, in the instant case, since consultant doctors were paid fixed remuneration and the working conditions were under supervision and control of the hospital authorities, services were rendered by the doctors, in the nature of employee. Hence, payments were subject to TDS under section 192 of the Act.
Rajnikant D. Shroff Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the assessee is a member of a society owning a building. The society has entered into an agreement with a developer for development of a new building after demolishing the old building. As per the terms of the agreement, the developer has to provide a flat along […]
ITAT Mumbai held that when the department has not disputed the sales transactions disclosed by the supplier in its books who is an income tax assessee then it cannot assume the same as bogus purchases made by the buyer more so when the transaction has been supported by proper documentary evidences and payments are made to suppliers through proper banking channels.
Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act; and If the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6), no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act.
Amendment in Explanation 5A to Sec 271(1)(c) even when made effective by Finance Act ,2009 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007 cannot be made applicable to assessee’s case because both original return and the revised return u/s 153A of the Act have been filed before the amended provisions were brought into the statute (which received assent of President on 13.8.2009).
AO is also equally responsible to find out whether the credit entry found on 01.07.2010 is genuine or not. The AO cannot take advantage of the ignorance or handicap of the assessee and say that there was undisclosed receipt by the assessee.
ITAT Kolkata held that the consequence, which were to be fall on account of non-observation of section 40A(3) must have nexus to the failure of object of introducing of the provision. Therefore, no disallowance can be made if the transactions do not defeat the object of Sec 40A(3) in as much as there genuiness is not challenged and they can be tracked end to end.
From the working submitted by the Appellant, it is evident that the value of each share is worked out at Rs. 40,616/-. Thus, apparently, higher share premium of Rs. 39,900/- is justifiable because of limited number of shares of the assessee company who are actual owner of assets of worth more than Rs. 60 crores.
Assessee carried on a systematic and regular activity in the nature of business and therefore the income from granting the premises on sub-license was to be assessed under the head income from business.
Merely because of the fact that assessee is a CEO of a multinational company mistake cannot be treated as false because in case of a person holding senior position such like mistake oftenly crept in as invariably person holding high position use to delegate the computation work to file the return of income to a Chartered Accountant
