The assessee is a charitable trust and has challenged the confirmation of the order of the AO where he disallowed the accumulation of the 15% even when the income was allowed u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act. The AO observed that if the trust is not left with surplus and there is deficit, then there can be no accumulation made. He further stated that accumulation or setting apart of 15% of income has been allowed by virtue of provision of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, when assessee is unable to spend the entire amount and where the entire amount has been spent, there is no surplus left that can be accumulated.
It cannot be denied that expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of developing housing project and not allowable by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) would ultimately go to increase assessee’s profit from such business and profit as computed after making the dis allowance would, therefore, qualify for deduction under section 10A.
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee claim for its exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short BC the Act CC). Appeal has been filed with a delay of ten days. Condonation petition has been filed. Delay is condoned and appeal admitted.
A partnership firm purchased property from NRI but failed to deduct TDS u/s 195. The ADIT (International Taxation) raised demand comprising tax and interest by issuing notice to one of the partners of the firm in his individual capacity.
ITAT held that that the payment made by the assessee to ICC amounting to Rs. 4.56 crore as `Rights fee’ is not in the nature of `Royalty’ or `Fees for technical services’ covered u/s 9(1)(vi) or 9(1(vii) of the Act and as such the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on this payment. Ex consequenti, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not attracted.
It is very strange that FAA,being a judicial authority,has held that non providing opportunity of cross examination would not vitiate the assessment proceedings.If the AO/assessee wants to rely upon the statements of someone it is their duty to prove the truthfulness of such statements.
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) on common grounds. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off through this consolidated order.
What has been sold was ancestral agricultural land which belongs to the HUF and it has been brought to tax in the hands of HUF after the death of Sh. Amarchand. There is no partition of HUF and there is no finding of any partition given by the Assessing Officer u/s 171 of the Act.
It is clear from the statutory provisions of the MV Act as well as the law laid down in judicial pronouncements that payments made for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law and which are not compensatory in nature cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s.37(1) read with Explanation thereto.
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 10th Jul 2012, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10.
