The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that the surplus/savings arising on prepayment of deferred cannot be taxed u/s 28(iv) as by making prepayment of a future liabity at present value no monetary benefit arises to assessee as the savings it made by prepayment would get set off against the interest it loses by making prepayment.
If the officer is not empowered to administer oath, then by scoring off the sections in the heads of the stationery would not authorize officer to administer oath and take statement under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the survey. Therefore, this statement is only a piece of information, and does not carry any evidentiary value.
The treatment of extended credit period to Associated Enterprises(AEs) as an international transaction and making adjustment of notional interest on the same has always been bone of contention between the assessee and department.
ITAT Mumbai held that the cost of acquisition of flat shall include the cost of amenities even when the agreement requiring the flat purchaser to pay such cost is not registered and no stamp duty paid on amenities cost.
During Income tax proceedings, often statement of a person is used to catch hold of prospective tax evading assessees. But, it is trite that the statement of such a person cannot be allowed to be used against the assessee without even providing an opportunity of cross examining such person.
The fall in gross profit ratio could be for various reasons such as increase in the cost of raw material, decrease in the market price of finished product, increase in the cost of processing by the assessee etc.
Assessee submitted that project receipt from Tanakpur Power Project of NHPC work is exempt from tax in India for the reason that assessee does not have continuous presence or ‘business connection’ or a permanent establishment in India.
Claiming Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When Property Builder Could Not Complete The Flat While Assessee Fulfilled Condition Under Above-Mentioned Section.
Since the mistake of quoting wrong PAN has been rectified in the revised TDS return filed by the assessee which has been accepted by the department, therefore, there is no justification in raising a demand on account of short deduction of TDS.
The only issue that is to be decided is whether the date of allotment of the flat or the date of possession of the flat by the assessee should be considered as the date for computing the holding period of 36 months.
