In the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off
These cross appeals by the Revenue and by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-4,Chenaai dated 8-2-2016.
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-4, Chennai dated 19-8-2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The only grievance in this appeal of assessee is non-granting of exemption under section 54 of the Act in respect of sale of the residential property.
Where Assessing Officer issued two notices for imposition of penalty namely, one u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and second u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAA in cases where search u/s 132 of the Act has been initiated, then such notices issued by AO are untenable in law.
Mere defect in the notice u/s 274 do not vitiates the penalty proceedings and no prejudice was caused to the assessee by non- marking of appropriate clause. Addition for Bogus purchases cannot be made under Section 69C as ‘unexplained expenditure’ if purchase are duly disclosed and payments are made through banking channels. The fact that the sellers are not traceable and the assessee surrendered the bogus purchases does not justify levy of penalty.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad bench, in the case of DRS Warehousing (South) Vs. ITO, held that the interest on FDs earned during the pre-operative period is taxable as ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provisions of Income Tax Act.
Sub-clause (i) of section 54 providing for the exemption does not require that the whole payment for purchase of new asset should be made. In other words even if an assessee acquires a new house on credit i.e. the payment for which may be made in future, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of deduction under section 54 because what is required by sub-clause (i) is that cost of new house should be equal to or more than the amount of long-term capital gain.
Now the issue before us arises so as to whether the labourers are the employees of assessee or they are working in contractual capacity attracting the provisions of TDS.
CIT (Appeals) was not correct in law that the assessee will be liable to deduct the TDS if the amount of a single contract exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. The contract has to be looked into party-wise not on the basis of the individual GR. In our opinion, all the payments made to a truck owner throughout the year are to be aggregated to ascertain the applicability of the TDS provision
The labour sardars are employed/deployed by the labour union to collect the money in bulk and distribute the same amongst the labourers, who are ultimate beneficiaries and not the labour sardars i.e in question. These labour sardars are remunerated by the union only for the job done. The collected money distributed amongst the labours/ labourers by the labour sardars on behalf of assessee and as such deducting of TDS from the said payment amount does not arise at all.
