These are bunch of seven appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 . First we shall take up cross appeals field by the assessee as well as the Revenue in ITA 4284/Mum/2014 and 1807/Mum/2011 for assessment year ( AY ) 2006-07 respectively.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently ruled that the service tax collection shall be deducted from gross Receipts while computing the profit for the purpose of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
1. The impugned additions and disallowance made in the order dated 29-12-2011 under section 143(3) of the Act, bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.
The primary condition of reasonable belief having nexus with the material on record is still operative. However, we are of the view, that mere fresh application of mind to the same set of facts or mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to the assessing officer even under the post-1989 section 147 of the Act.
When the entire investment for the purchase of new house has gone through the assessee’s account then benefit u/s 54 of Income Tax Act cannot be denied on the ground the new house was purchased in the name of wife. Hence, the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act is allowed.
ITAT Held that (i) That the assessee has generated steam power from bio-gas, (ii) Generation of cooling power from cooling towers and (ii) Cooling Power from Ammonia Absorption Refrigeration Plant ans such activities are eligible for Deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The point worth noting here is that this fact was stated by the assessee in his statement also at the time of search. Learned assessing officer has chosen to rely only upon that part of statement which suited him and ignored the remaining one.
Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that advance given by a company to its Director/ substantial shareholder cannot be considered as deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Rule 17 of order V of CPC mandates that an independent local person be the witness of service through affixture and for the purpose of having been associated with the identification of the place. However a perusal of the affixture report shows that there was no independent local person as a witness and there is no evidence that anyone identified the place as belonging to the assessee before such affixture.
While dismissing a departmental appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G bench held that the State Bank of India (SBI) s not bound to deduct tax at source on site restoration fund of ONGC and the interest paid on such fund.
