It shows that these assessees had really intended to comply with the notices and therefore it should not be inferred that there was a default which could invite penalty u/s 271(l)(b). The ITAT Delhi Bench-G in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (2008) 115 TTJ (Delhi) 419
We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Copies of Registration Certificate under Kerala Value Added Tax and Form ST-2 under Service Tax Act placed at pages 20 and 21 clearly mentions that assessee has been registered as a works contractor doing construction of residential complex
The next two items are penal charges of Rs.5,11,688/ – and Rs. 10,970/-. These amounts have already been held to be business income while discussing the issues of section 80IB. Accordingly, we direct the AO to treat these two amounts as part of business income for computation under section 80HHC.
The assets did not fall under any of the above exceptional three conditions. The said block of assets was used for the purpose of business during the year. Under the circumstances the assets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration ,
We have heard both the sides in detail. Thrust given by the C1T(A) on the mens rea reflected in the conduct of the assessee does not survive with usual force, since the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., 306 1TR 277.
In this view of the matter, we hold that the payment of royalty made by the assessee is out side the purview of section 40(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, no TDS is required to be made from such royalty payment. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
The assessee was engaged in the business of real estate development. It held land as stock in trade with a book value of Rs. 4.4 crs. The said land was introduced at its market value of Rs. 11.50 crs as capital contribution into a new firm. The surplus of Rs. 6.01 crore was credited to the profit and loss account. Relying on Hind Construction 83 ITR 211 (SC), it was claimed that the surplus of Rs. 6.01 crs was not liable to tax as the introduction of an asset into a partnership was not a sale.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara (Taxpayer) v ACIT. [2009-TIOL-789-ITAT-MUM] held that where a transfer of shares is made conditional upon fulfillment of certain covenants by the parties, the transfer can be regarded as complete only upon the fulfillment of such covenants.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Bakhtawar B Dubash v. DCIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 403 1/Mum/03), Mrs. Sudha D Dubash v. DCIT, Mumbai ( ITA No. 4032/Mum/03) has held that an amount disallowed in the hands of the Company for corporate tax purposes, should not be taxed again in the hands of its Director as the same amount cannot be taxed twice.
This is a very interesting ruling where the difference between the goodwill and the trade mark has been brought out clearly. The Tribunal has observed that the trademark can be transferred separately, either with or without the goodwill of the business whereas goodwill cannot be sold without the business itself and therefore transfer of trademark cannot be regarded as transfer of goodwill.
