From the above discussion, it transpires that the objective satisfaction of the AO as to the correctness of the assessee’s claim was not recorded in the instant case. However, even if Rule 8D cannot be applied, the AO is obliged to ascertain the expenditure which had been incurred to earn the tax-free income.
Admittedly, learned CIT(A) admitted the fresh evidences but did not allow any opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examining those evidences or furnishing any evidence in rebuttal as required by sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A.
The AO noted in the assessment order that the assessee society is running maternity hospital and all services pertaining to maternity only. Maternity is a natural process and could not be termed as illness or disease. Giving birth and at that time hospital providing services for delivery could not be said to be providing any treatment for illness or mental defectiveness.
Once the legislature has not specified the ‘due date’ as provided in section 139(1) in Explanation 5A, then by implication, it has to be taken as the date extended under section 139(4). In view of the above, we hold that the assessee gets the benefit / immunity under clause (b) of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) because the assessee has filed its return of income within the ‘due date’ and, therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained.
One thing is apparent that divergent view have been expressed by the Hon’ble Courts what is to be charged u/s.22 of the IT Act is the annual value of the property, irrespective of the fact whether or not any income is either actually received or accrued to the assessee.
Foreign exchange forward contract Gain/Loss to Assessee engaged in exports business : Speculative or Business? Justification for Premature Foreign exchange forward contract if assessee takes the same as business transaction.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 26/03/2010 showing taxable income of Rs. 6,03,414/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short on 05/04/2010.
The undisputed fact accepted by the assessee is that Mr. Tarun Goyal was running a racket of providing accommodation entries by floating numerous companies. The modus operandi brought out by the AO in the assessment order, is not disputed by the assessee.
The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) as stood prior to the amendments made by the Finance Act 2010 thus were resulting into unintended consequences and causing grave and genuine hardships to the assessees who had substantially complied with the relevant TDS provisions by deducting the tax at source and by paying the same to the credit of the Government before the due date of filing of their returns u/s 139(1).
A construction in inhabitable position cannot be equated with a residential house. If a person cannot live in a premises, then such premises cannot be considered as a residential house. In our opinion, investment in the construction would be complete as a house only when such house becomes habitable.
