Where assessee having received share capital furnished evidences, i.e. addresses, PAN No., copies of returns and bank statements of subscribers, etc., AO was not justified in treating share application money as unexplained without rebutting such evidences.
Whether the reinvestment made by the assessee in 3 residential houses having common amenities, kitchen, common entrance, common house name, common electrical, common storage, common water, common garden, common boundary wall, common guard room, etc would give eligibility to claim exemption u/s 54 of the Act by construing all the three units as a single residential house ?
Where the income of the assessee was exempt under section 11 and the assessee was not carried on the business, section 40(a)(ia) had no application. Moreover, the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 11 by the Finance Act, 2018 making inter alia the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) applicable in case of charitable or religious trust or institution with effect from 1st April, 2019 further shows that section 40(a)(ia) hitherto was not applicable in computing income of entities registration u/s 12A of the Act.
The Registry has put a note that the applications are time barred by five days. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the settled legal position of law, the applications cannot be treated as time barred. He in this respect has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), which read as under:-
A.O. noted that the deduction under section 80IC is to be allowed on the profits derived from eligible business. The interest earned on the FDRs cannot be said that interest income earned from manufacturing activities of the assessee. It can only be said that interest income on FDRs is attributable to business activities but cannot be said that it derived from manufacturing activity of the assessee.
Commission earned by non-resident for services rendered abroad could not be construed as incomes accrued or arisen in India and accordingly disallowance made by AO by invoking section 40(a)(i) was set aside.
M/s Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Agra) In the case at hand, the challenge of the assessee is that since in the reasons recorded, the AO has not spelt out as to what he did with the information received by him from the Investigation Wing, the reasons are hit by the vice of non-application […]
ITAT held that There is no time-limit prescribed for bringing the consideration of export into India under section 10AA. Admittedly, the consideration had been received in India, albeit subsequent to filing of the return by the assessee. However, merely because the consideration had been received after 6 months from the close of the financial year the deduction, cannot be denied to the assessee on the sum. Therefore, AO was directed to grant deduction to the assessee under section 10AA of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Power Plant Engineers Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is apparent that the persons deputed by the recipient of the income were not routine employees, but were highly qualified and technical employees who were providing the head and brain’ to the assessee company. It cannot be said to be the reimbursement of salary expenditure when […]
Assessee held own funds of Rs. 23,580 lakhs, whereas investment in subsidiaries stood at Rs. 1,576 lakhs. Presumption in such case would be that assessee had used only its own funds for making investments. Further, there was commercial expediency in making said investments, hence no disallowance was called for.
