The assessee is registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred the Act) and has been claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which has been denied by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the assessee is involved in commercial activities as the assessee receives coaching fees from the students of CA while giving coaching to the CA students.
Stand alone AIR Information is not sufficient to hold that cash deposits constitute income. Cash deposits in bank account may or may not be Income. Hence when the treatment of the amount as Income is itself doubt , it definitely can not constitute Income escaping assessment and, therefore, it shall be too far fetched to hold that AIR Information constitutes Reason to believe that Income has escaped assessment.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the provisions of Sec 50C is applicable only to transfer of land of which the assessee is absolute and legal owner and cannot be applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights in land.Thus, the transfer value cannot be benchmarked to stamp duty value.
Surplus funds not immediately required for day to day banking were kept in Bank deposits. The income earned there from thus would be income from banking business eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
Purchase of a license to use shelf/shrink-wrapped software is purchase of a product and not a copyright. Wherever the Government of India intended to include consideration for the use of software as ‘Royalties’, it explicitly provided so in the DTAA with the concerned country (e.g. India-Malaysia DTAA).
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that raising of invoices per se doesn’t result in accrual of income rather an income can be considered to have been accrued only when there is a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount to the assessee and there is realistic probability of realization of the income to the assessee.
As regards applicability of TDS provisions, not two but three views exist on the impugned issue – (i) TDS u/s 194H – which was discussed by AO in the assessment order dt. 18/3/2012; TDS u/s 194C – which was discussed and upheld by AO in the assessment order dt. 18/3/2012; TDS u/s.194A – (which the assessee does not agree with) and not sought to be taken by CIT. Revision of order u/s 263 cannot be done if two views are possible on the issue.
The CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding on the basis of material placed on record to the effect that all the three conditions regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditors were duly established.
Various additions have been made by AO without proper application of mind and has no distant connection with the material on record & third party transactions were added in the hands of the assessee without any basis or material and thus, the AO framed the assessment in a hypothetical way putting the assessee to enormous harassment and inconvenience.
Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law.
