The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the property in question was sold by assessee’s late husband before his death and the receipts out of the sale proceeds are deposited in a joint bank account that of assessee and her late husband. Once this is the position the entire receipts are to be assessed in the hands of late husband although through legal heirs by adopting the procedure prescribed u/s. 159 of the Act.
The object and activities of the assessee were entrusted to it by RBI as a part of its supervisory role over the bank in India. Revenue doubted that assessee is engaged in commercial activities and hence proviso of section 2 (15) was applicable to the case of assessee and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 11.
Appeals filed by the assessee were withdrawn. The Revenue filed the appeal. Facts of the case were that the assessee company was engaged in the business of running a mall. A TDS survey was conducted on 15-11-2012 during which it was observed that the assessee company had deducted tax on professional fees u/s.194J at lower rate than as required by the section.
When reassessment proceedings were started and ended by passing a reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, then original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and appeal against that order does not survive for adjudication and the same was correctly dismissed by the CIT(A).
Mohini Originals v. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Facts of the Case The Assessee was an EOU filed its return of income, where AO observed that they have claimed exemption under section 10B which was allowed at the time of Assessment. Deduction on duty drawback was also allowed. However, in the proceedings for the next year A.O. […]
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DVO has estimated the cost of investment at Rs.3,58,39,100/- against the cost of investment declared by the assessee at Rs.3,47,12,678/-. Therefore, the difference is about 3.24% and for this minor difference, no addition is called for. Since the difference is very nominal, no addition is called for in this regard.
The sole basis of the Department to assess profit of Rs.70.00 lacs is based upon the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. It is a matter of fact that by the time statement was recorded, the entire project was not sold by the assessee. Only two shops were sold.
The assessee was involved in power sector contracts and as per the terms and conditions of such work contract, an amount of 5 to 10% is used to deducted from the bills raised as retention money which would be payable to the assessee after successful completion of the commissioning of the project.
Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) provides that where the assessee is not deemed to be assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee
In the present case, AO come to know about cash deposit of Rs.13.01 Lac by the assessee through AIR Information. On being called upon to explain the source of such cash deposit, assessee submitted that he has inherited a sum of Rs.13 lac from his mother who has died on 14-08-2006 and produced copy of her income tax return,
