In our view, though Form 26AS (r/w r.3 1AB and ss. 203AA and 206C(5)) represents a part of a wholesome procedure designed by the Revenue for accounting of TDS (and TCS), the burden of proving as to why the said Form (Statement) does not reflect the details of the entire tax deducted at source for and on behalf of a deductee cannot be placed on an assessee-deductee.
Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Dinesh Jain has held that Penalty u/s. 271E is leviable if a person repays any loan, otherwise, than in accordance with provisions of section 269T. As per section 269T no person shall repay the loan otherwise, than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the person who has made the loan.
The amendment brought in by the Finance Act with retrospective effect, which was passed in the year subsequent to the year under consideration, should not be considered for penalizing the assessee by way of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in case of DCIT Vs. M/s Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., (supra) it is to be seen that service agreement entered in case of M/s Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., clearly establishes an employer and employee relationship since Doctors are governed
CIT (Appeals) has inferred of the hotel/s, where the assessee’s employees stayed, as also serving as their work place. The communications between them and the head office, which is again a part of their work, has again admittedly been carried out in India and, as stated
Moot point arising in the instant case, not addressed by the first appellate authority, i.e., as what constitutes a ‘purchase’ for the purposes of section 54F or, for that matter, the other para materia provisions.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Tribunal (Agra) in case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs CIT (ITA No. 337/Agra/2013) pronounced on 29th May 2013 wherein the AO disallowed interest payments made without deducting TDS under Section 194A of the Act.
Clause (4) of Sec. 54 clearly mention that the amount of net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s. 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return (such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub section (1) of Sec. 139).
he exemption u/s 54 was not allowed as what was transferred is a residential unit with 8ft x 8 ft dimensions and holding that such structure cannot be treated as building. However, exemption u/s 54F was allowed to the extent of amount spent within six months from the date of transfer of the asset.
ITAT Delhi ruling in Divya Devi vs. ACIT: Jewellery rebate as per CBDT’s Instruction No. 1916. Download full text of the order. Date: 16-05-2014.
