Service tax component need not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computing income under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITAT further held that receipts on account of reimbursement of equipment Lost in Hole will not form part of gross receipts for the purpose of section 44BB.
Penalty under section 271E for violation of provision of section 269T could not be levied as assessee-company repaid loans advances otherwise than by crossed cheque, however, it substantiated with relevant documents that all the payments made by it were genuine and all the creditors accounted the loans as well as the repayments in their books of account and moreover, it was a mere technical violation.
On agricultural Land no tax is payable when the compensation/enhanced compensation is received by the assessee as their land were agricultural land. The compensation was received in respect of agricultural land belonging to the assessee which had been acquired by the state government.
It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer admitted the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F(1)(b) in respect of investment on long term capital gain but instead of taking actual sale consideration received, has adopted the figure of sale consideration by invoking Section 50C. This is not in accordance with the provision of Section 50C which has created a deeming fiction. Section 54F is an exemption provision and it has given its applicability in itself, therefore, Section 50C will not come under picture.
Section 68 had no application when the shares were allotted by the assessee-company under a barter system as the respective parties did not receive cash nor did pay any cash, there was no real credit of cash in the cash book and the question of inclusion of the amount of the entry as unexplained cash credit could not arise.
CIT (A) upheld the reopening of the assessment by recording the reasons on incorrect facts. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the reopening of the assessment by the AO is without application of mind and simply going by the information received as per AIR Data. Hence the reopening of the assessment is quashed being invalid.
It has been held in various decisions that action u/s. 263 can be taken only when there is lack of enquiry or no enquiry. However, in the instant case necessary enquiry was conducted. Therefore, merely because the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree with the manner of enquiry conducted by the AO he cannot substitute his own reasons and held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Higher rate of depreciation was allowable on ATM machines as these machines was to be treated as “Computers” for the purpose of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appeal preferred by the Revenue. The issue under consideration is with regard to the bogus purchases conducted by the assessee and as per revenue CIT(Appeals) has erred in granting relief to the assessee without dealing specifically with the facts of the case and even not calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer.
In the given case, the first issue raised by the assessee is relates to the disallowance of business expenses from the remuneration earned by the assessee from the partnership firm assessed as business income u/s. 28 (v) of the IT Act, 1961.
