In view of above order and respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), we decide Ground No.2 of the appeal in favour of assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the income arising from transaction in derivative by assessee(s), being sub-account FII cannot be treated as business profit or loss.
Imparting of yoga training through well structured yoga shivirs/ camps also falls under the category of imparting education, one of the charitable objects defined under section 2(15) of the Act.
ince the assessee did not carry on any profession in the relevant previous year, the receipt cannot be taxed u/s 28 of the Act, since Section 176 (4) does not contain any deeming provision treating such receipt as income falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation” and also, it cannot be taxed as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act.
Client acquisition cost paid by the assessee is towards acquiring an intangible asset and therefore eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
Income Tax Officer being a quasi judicial authority should observed the parameters which are laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in various decisions and reasserted in the case of UTI Mutual Fund Vs ITO (supra) for recovery of outstanding demands.
In the present case before us, the assessee has offered the capital gains tax in the next year and there has not been any prejudice to the revenue. Further, the assessee has explained to the query raised during the scrutiny proceedings before the Assessing Officer was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Order is not erroneous.
Assessee as well as his counsels have done lackluster attempt to represent the matters by not fulfilling all the criterion necessary to represent the matter before the Tribunal
Assessee cannot be said to be a hospital or medical institution as it is not engaged in dispensing medical facility though it is engaged in running a blood bank. Activity of the Assessee cannot be considered to be engaged in medical facilities so as to be entitled to exemption of income u/s. 11.
A careful consideration of the assessment order would reveal that AO while holding that assessee is liable for deduction of tax at source under the provisions of sec. 1941 of the Act has mainly rested his case on the ground that is the rent as defined in explanation u/s 1941 and the assessee has paid rent in respect of buses utilized by him being in the nature of plant.
Whether Ld.CIT(A) is correct in denying additional claims on the ground that claims were not made by way of filing the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee did neither claim those additional claims in the Original/Revised return nor claimed before Assessing Officer but were claimed first time before the ld.CIT(A)?
