AO to treat the interest income temporarily parked in the banks and given as unsecured loan which yielded income and which has been offered to tax by the assessee should be treated as income from business and not from other sources.
M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs. JCIT (OSD) (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The assessee company has created a provision under the head ’Future Leave Encashment’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to explain how the amount debited towards the provision for future leave encashment can be allowed as deduction. In response to […]
Where assessee failed to deposit the unutilized sales consideration under Capital Gain Account Scheme within the period specified under section 139(1) or 139(4), AO was justified in restricting the claim of deduction to the expenditure incurred upto the due date of filing return of income.
A bare perusal of nature of services, prima facie, reveals that the said services were of general in nature which is usually provided by the landlord to the tenant. Therefore, amenity charges, in our opinion, being part and parcel of same transaction, were asses sable as Income from House Property.
In the instant case, the tax has not deducted the TDS due to wrong classification of the payments made which was included under the heading ‘purchases’ and the purchases do not attract the TDS, whereas the sub contract payments attract TDS.
Dis allowance on account of VAT not pad of Rs.1,78,334/- was made by the AO only because of erroneous auditor’s report and it has been brought to our notice how the error has occurred and we find that assessee’s contentions are backed by records, therefore, we being the final fact finding authority, find that it was the mistake of the auditor who has wrongly given the figures and made wrong observation because of which the AO made the dis allowance. However, the AO before making the dis allowance could have asked the assessee to explain before making the dis allowance.
Assessing Officer that the actual investment made in the new residential house is Rs. 20 lakh, but, he has also filed a revised computation of income on 20th November 2012, offering taxable long term capital gain at a higher figure of Rs. 24,98,488. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has accepted the income shown in the revised computation of income. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we are of the view that the explanation of the assessee to the effect that investment shown in new house at Rs. 25 lakh was due to a bonafide mistake is acceptable.
The Kolkata ITAT recently held that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is binding on the department and it cannot take a plea that such a circular is not valid or is against the provisions of law.
There is no dispute that the search was conducted in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration therefore the provisions of Section 153C are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration however, the mention of this Section in the order is only a mistake which is covered under the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act.
The contract of guarantee does not give any rise to principal – agent relationship between the assessee and the bank and, therefore, the consideration received by the bank on account of guarantee commission cannot be reckoned as commission as contemplated under section 194H and accordingly, there was no requirement to deduct TDS on this payment.
