A careful perusal of the appointment order issued to the doctors shows that a fixed monthly amount was paid by the assessee as remuneration and it is in no way concerned with the fees received from the patients treated by them. The appointment letter was issued to the concerned doctor on the basis of his application. The doctors are governed by the service rules of the assessee.
Chimanlal Manilal Patel Vs. ACIT The AO has not disputed the consideration received by the assessee. The addition has been made on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. The assessee has furnished all the facts of sale, documents! material before the AO. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of the documents/details furnished by the assessee. Only because the assessee agreed to the additions because of the deeming provisions it cannot be construed to be filing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. The assessee agreed to addition on the basis of valuation made by the stamp valuation authority cannot be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per the sale agreement is seemed to be incorrect and wrong. In view of these facts we are of the considered view that penalty cannot be levied on the basis of deeming provision.
Tata International Ltd vs. DCIT – It is an undisputed fact that the reasons actually recorded by the Assessing Officer were not furnished to the assessee till 14.06.20012 despite repeated requests and demands and therefore, the gist of reasons as furnished vide letter dated 28th June 2007 cannot be treated as reasons actually recorded by the Assessing Officer as per section 148 (2) and as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). Thus, the Assessing Officer has failed to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment within the reasonable time and rather prior to the completion of assessment, than the reassessment order passed without supply of reasons as recorded for reopening of the assessment, is invalid and cannot sustain.
Adverting to the present case, it is clearly evident that ‘reasons recorded’ were not provided to the assessee despite categorical directions by the ITAT and even when the so-called “reasons recorded” have been supplied after a gap of almost 11 years, it is amply clear from the face of it that the ‘reasons’ were not recorded prior to the issuance of notice under Section 148.
Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim.
AO has not given any reason for disallowing the claim. We also find that the AO has simply followed the findings of earlier assessment years. As similar additions in earlier assessment year has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) which has been accepted by the Revenue as Committee on Dispute declined to give permission to the department to proceed with the appeal , findings of the Ld. CIT(A) become final. As Ld. CIT(A) has rightly pointed out that after the amendment in Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is not required to demonstrate that the debt is bad .
The whole case revolves upon the lease deed dated 24.12.2004 executed between the lessor, Smt. Sudha Saraswat and the assessee-society through which the land measuring 5150.48 sq. meter was let out to assessee society for 30 years. Copy of the lease deed is appended with the assessment order. The assessee paid Rs. 10,000/- as premium and agreed to pay Rs. 150/- per month as rent of the demised property, i.e., 1800/- per annum.
Tribunal is not empowered to pass an order ‘thereon’ on the subject-matter which is not in appeal as per the appeal memo to be adjudicated upon. As far as the question of withdrawal of cross-objection is concerned, in the light of the above discussion, had the cross-objection was not withdrawn, even then, such a legal issue was beyond the scope of the adjudication through a cross-objection under section 253(4) because the impugned legal issue was altogether an independent as well as a separate issue.
Section 195 of the Act clearly states that any person responsible for paying to a non resident any interest or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall at the time of credit of such income will income tax thereon at the rate inforce at the time of payment or credit. Therefore, the first test to be applied for deduction of TDS is to see whether income in the hands of payee is taxable in India or not.
By virtue of offering personal guarantee and collateral security for the benefit of the company, the liquidity position of the assessee had gone down. In the strict sense if it is to be construed the amount forwarded by the company to the assessee was not in the shape of advances or loans. The arrangement between the assessee and the company was merely for the sake of convenience arising out of business expediency. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to hold that the amount withdrawn by the assessee partakes the character of deemed dividend under the provisions of section 2(22)(e).
