The commission earned by the non-resident agent who carried on the business of selling Indian goods outside India, cannot be said have deemed to be, income which has accrued and/or arisen in India & therefore no occasion to deduct tax at source in respect of the payment made to the non-resident agent arise & thus there is no liability to deduct TDS in such cases.
In the present case by virtue of independent documents as referred in paper book the assessee has proved the genuineness of the share transaction and there was no justification to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of long term capital gain merely on the basis of information received from DDIT which is based on admission of Shri Mukesh Chokshi.
Legal position as propounded by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Trishul Investments Ltd (supra) supports the plea of the assessee that interest paid for acquisition of the shares would partake the character of cost of shares and, therefore, assessee had rightly capitalized the interest along with the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains.
Admittedly, when the assessee was confronted with the depreciation being claimed on the property, the income from which had been returned under the head income from house property, it immediately realized its mistake of computation of total income and agreed for the addition to its total income.
Assessee could collect various evidences only after passing of the assessment order. According to the assessee, these additional evidences are vital documents which are required to be considered in order to adjudicate the issue in a judicious manner.
The assessee submitted that at that time she was having pregnancy of 5 months and due to immense work pressure in the office she could not devote time to see the content of ITR filed by the said ‘Taxspanner’ as she did not understand the form also, hence she just signed the ITR-V and sent it to the Bangalore CPC of Income Tax Department.
Assessee had not invested in Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date under section 139(1) but complied with the conditions under section 54F(1). The provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally on the aspect of limitation period. However the investment in residential property is a must which the assessee had complied with evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Repute Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the present case, the order of AO may be brief but that by itself is not a sufficient reason to hold the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
It is held that Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT that the assessee claiming that he has no bank account or based on transfer instructions, no transfer of funds had, however, been effected, would be of little moment in-as-much as the addition is toward unexplained money or bank deposit.
