It is the legal owner (i.e. the assessee in the case before us) who is liable to the wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets licensed/leased by him for a term of less than twelve years as laid down in section 269UA(f). However, the legal owner shall not be liable to wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets leased by him for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act. It is in fact the person acquiring any rights (i.e., lessee) in or with respect to any building under a lease for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act who shall be deemed to be the owner thereof in terms of the provisions of section 4(8)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act.
The view that section 43B is a general provision which merely bars deduction of specified sums, unless they are actually paid and whereas provisions of section 36(1)(va) specifically deal with deduction in respect of payment of employees’ contribution to provident fund and other funds; therefore, the provisions of section 36(1)(va),
In the present case, as is evident from admitted facts, the notice was Under Section 16(1). It is a general notice on the assessee as if she made a gift which had escaped assessment. There is no reference or mention to alleged deemed gift made by her mother Smt. Gurcharan Kaur which the G.T.O. wished to assess.
The learned D.R has vehemently contended before us that no assessee can be said to be providing telecommunication services unless such services are provided from one end to the other end. According to him, the assessee is operating as backbone industry and connect the calls received through other service providers and, therefore, does not provide any service to the actual user of the phone. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that legislature itself has allowed the deduction to telecommunication services through satellite or turnking network.
Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of A.Y. 1997-98 on the basis of finding that the assessee had not paid tax on the income declared under VDIS, 97 and made the addition of income declared year-wise under VDIS as unexplained investment. It was held that the addition was not justified as the alleged investments were not made in the immediate preceding financial year to the assessment year under consideration.
1.Whether deduction for tax, duty etc. is allowable u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on payment basis before incurring the liability to pay such amounts? The deduction for tax, duty etc. is allowable u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payment basis before incurring the liability to pay such amount. 2.Whether Modvat Credit available to the assessee as on the last day of the previous year amounts to payment of Central Excise duty u/s. 43B?
The tax paid by the company was part and parcel of the salary and not any sum outside the salary or independent of salary. Thus, the tax liability of the assessee was nothing but the salary and not anything outside it. Therefore, this payment of tax on behalf of the assessee will be monetary payment. In view thereof, the provision contained in section 10(10CC) is not applicable for the reason that like salary, this payment is also a monetary payment forming part of the salary.
JCIT Vs Mukund Limited (ITAT Mumbai) – The consideration of Rs.2.04 crores paid by the assessee company for obtaining the leasehold rights from MIDC in favour of the assessee for a period of 99 years is capital in nature and therefore, not allowable as deduction to the assessee.
Explore the legal case of Aggarwal Mitra Mandal Trust vs. DIT (Exemption) (2007) 293 ITR (AT) 259 (Delhi) where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal granted insights into the denial of registration under Section 12A. Understand the significance of the CIT’s role in assessing the genuineness of trust activities and objects, and how Section 13(1) applies during income computation. Get detailed analysis and key takeaways from this crucial legal precedent.
Explore a landmark Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case from Chennai where a penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act was successfully deleted. The tribunal found that the undisclosed income, as declared in the block return, remained the assessed income. Discover the rationale behind the tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the genuine nature of credits, the agricultural background of creditors, and the firm’s non-professional management. Learn how the tribunal concluded that the acceptance of cash loans was due to business exigencies, establishing a reasonable cause for the exemption from penalties. #IncomeTax #LegalCase #ChennaiTribunal
