If a case falls under clause (i) of section 10(10), the entire amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity becomes exempt. Au contraire, if a case falls under sub-clause (iii) of section 10(10), then, the exemption is limited to the amount as the Central Government may notify in official gazette.
Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs. ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 193 (SC) has clearly held that in case the provisions of Section 22 are applicable the property is to be assessed as income from house property.
he payment made by the assessee as referral fees is directly proportionate or percentage of an amount received by the assessee for providing CT scan and MRI scan and such payment comes within the term ‘Commission or Brokerage’.
In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the particulars before completion of the assessment u/s 143(3), though the details were filed in the scrutiny proceeding.
Having held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) shall have retrospective effect the question arises that if the recipients of interest in question have already considered the same for computing their income offered to tax then the dis allowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not attracted.
Admittedly there is a mistake committed by the assessee in not adding interest on the refund to his sources of income. There is no disputing the fact that the tax payer duly and diligently must necessarily in its return of income disclose all avenues of his income. The assessee in its defence has consistently maintained […]
This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-21, New Delhi vide order dated 16-9-2016 for the assessment year 2012- 13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal
The short reason for which deduction under section 80IB(10) has been declined to the assessee is that the assessee did not own the land on which the housing project, by the name of ‘Narayan Bungalows’, is built.
Where no return was filed prior to the date of search and a return had been filed only after the issue of notice under section 153A and in respect of income offered by assessee no proper explanation was provided regarding nature and source of income, AO was justified in initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).
We would not hesitate to observe that the lower authorities which have hushed through the facts to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of principle of preponderance of human probability, had however absolutely failed to appreciate that the said principle could have been validly applied only on the basis of a considerate view as regards the facts of the case in totality, and not merely on the basis of the stand alone statement of the aforesaid third party, viz. Sh. Mukesh Choksi.
