Follow Us:

All ITAT

To Claim deduction U/s. 80P Society has to file its return of Income

January 31, 2013 14187 Views 0 comment Print

It is settled principles of law that in order to avail benefits under the beneficial provision, the conditions provided by the legislature has to be complied with. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in view of the mandatory provisions contained in section 139(1) r.w.s. 80A(5) of the Act it is mandatory for every cooperative society for claiming deduction u/s 80P to file the return of income and to make a claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act in the return itself. In view of the above discussion, if the return was not filed either u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or in pursuance of notice issued u/s 142(1) or u/s 148, the taxpayer is not entitled for any deduction under section 80P of the Act.

State Government is a person for the purposes of collecting TCS

January 30, 2013 5743 Views 0 comment Print

Income Tax is a code in itself and for levying taxes certain terms have been defined in a particular manner and they carry special meanings. Word ‘person’ is one among them. So, in our humble opinion, State Government is a person for purposes of collecting tax at sources as per the provisions of Sec 206C of the Act.

SSI situated in ‘industrially backward State’ eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IB, even if it manufactures items specified in 11th Schedule

January 30, 2013 2403 Views 0 comment Print

On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it can be seen that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to deduction under sec.80IB of the Act since the assessee unit is located in an industrially back-ward State specified in VIII Schedule and is governed by the provisions of sub-sec. (iv) of Sec.80IB of the I.T. Act. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by analyzing the provisions of the Act held that the assessees,

If Assessee without challenging S. 14A computed disallowance, it cannot object to addition U/s. 14A

January 29, 2013 2404 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee had declared exempt income and on asking of the Assessing Officer, it had itself computed the disallowance amount of Rs. 4,83,414/- under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and exactly the same very amount has been disallowed. In our opinion, once the assessee itself computed the disallowance, instead of challenging the very applicability of the provisions, we do not find any force in the cross objections preferred by the assessee. Consequently, we do not find any merit either in the appeal filed by the Revenue or Cross Objections at the behest of the assessee.

S. 54F do not differentiate between House in good or bad condition

January 29, 2013 2238 Views 0 comment Print

If Assessee Possess more than one house, it can result in denial of deduction under section 54F relief even if one of them is in bad condition.

S. 271(1)(c) No cannot be imposed if despite addition tax effect not changes

January 29, 2013 3464 Views 0 comment Print

This was an appeal filed by the department against the penalty deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is a software company claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. During the quantum proceedings, the then assessing officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Act of Rs. 31,52,432/- on the ground that the approval granted to the assessee

Notional gains from derivatives held as stock-in-trade is taxable in year of realization

January 28, 2013 14054 Views 0 comment Print

As per Ld Counsel for assessee, the anticipated profits are notional profits in this year and are realized in the next year and therefore, they are taxable in the next year. Therefore, as per Sri Mehta, the addition made by the AO is rightly deleted by the CIT(A). On the other hand, Ld DR for the revenue could not demonstrate if the profits are realized in this year.

S. 194H TDS applicable on payment in the nature of commission, even in the absence of relationship of a principal & agent

January 26, 2013 15143 Views 0 comment Print

Section 194H talks about the payment to a recipient which is the income by way of commission or brokerage. It does not require that the relationship between the payer and the payee should be of a principal and agent. The Explanation to section 194 elaborates on the terms ‘commission or brokerage’ by including any payment received or receivable directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of another person. Thus, it is clear that the provisions of section 194H do not require any formal contract of agency.

Extra consideration for acquiring an asset cannot be disallowed if main purpose of the same is not tax evasion

January 26, 2013 1168 Views 0 comment Print

‘Let us assume that Mr. ‘A’ purchases a machine which is very much required by him for his business purpose but for such acquisition of machine by him, he paid some extra price as per the A.O. This is not the case of the A.O. that using of machine for business purpose is not the main purpose of acquiring of machine and in that situation, in our humble opinion, the A.O. cannot invoke Exp.(3) to Section 43(1) of the Act.

S. 35(2AB)(1) ‘Drug trials’ expenditure on outside trial cannot be disallowed as trials can be carried in outside labs only

January 25, 2013 1365 Views 0 comment Print

Carrying out drug trial is essential for approval of the drug in question to be sold in the public and hence, in our considered opinion, clinical drug trial cannot be carried out inside an in-house research facility i.e. usually the laboratory.

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930