Though the assessee is the sole owner of the property, he has included his wife and son as co-owners in the sale deed only to avoid succession problems in future and that they were also included as co-obligants in the loan agreement on insistence by the SBI to avoid legal litigation in future.
Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly classified the assessee as an investor and treated the gains received on sale of shares and mutual funds as short term capital gains as against business income and granted relief to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
It was, therefore, contended that assessee was not liable to pay advance tax on 15/9/2011 and 15/12/2011 as the receipt of gift was not estimable at the relevant point of time. Apart therefrom, an additional plea has also been raised, which is to the effect that the interest under section 234C of the Act could not be charged while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.
Fact that direct one to one relationship between purchases and sales have not been established, I am of the view that estimation of 12.5% as profit embedded in impugned purchases shown from these tainted parties and adding the same to the total income returned, would meet the ends of justice.
he factum of issuance of notice within time is to be proved on query by the authority whose jurisdiction is challenged for want of The aggrieved party cannot be asked to lead negative evidence in support of its claim.
AO declined assessee’s claim of deduction on the plea that the profit claimed as deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act was not derived from the housing project but from sale of unutilized FSI.
Where assessee paid amount to deliveryman to deliver the newspapers and delivery persons were nothing but casually engaged labourers and they have no other work to perform and assessee had wrongly debited the amount as commission in its books, AO was not justified in making dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) for no TDS by only giving weight age to nomenclature and without seeing the real purpose for payment.
TDS rates are fixed on the basis of nature of the services or contract and not on the basis of the number of recipients of the payment. When the intention of both the parties is clear that the payments shall be made for each of the service independently, then, the services are clearly ascertainable and divisible. The TDS rates for each of the services would therefore vary.
AO failed to appreciate that company is an independent entity and distinct person. The action of the company will not have any bearing on the shareholders. AO has no jurisdiction to charge anything in the case of assessee over the dealings of any other person.
Recently, in DCIT vs. Ford India Limited & vice-versa[I.T.A. Nos. 673 and 840 /Chny/2015 and I.T.A. Nos. 748 and 749 /Chny/2015, A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, decided on 31.01.2017], one of the question raised before ITAT, Chennai was whether CIT(A) erred in deleting the tax
