according to the provisions of sub-section (3) to Section 12AA, even after grant of registration, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution, he is empowered to pass an order in writing canceling the registration of such trust or institution after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007] 9 RC 637 ; 11 SCC 363 action must be initiated by the competent authority under the Income-tax Act, where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 of the Act within that period of four years. In Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 323 ITR 130 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had approved the view expressed by the Special Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra).
The assessee has deposited the sale consideration within one month of receipt with NABARD for availing exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act. In such circumstances whether the assessee is eligible for claim of exemption or not ? In our view, in this type of case, the period of six months for making deposit u/s. 54EC of the Act should be reckoned from the dates of actual receipt of the consideration,
Though the incomes assessable under them are part of total income as defined in sections 2(45)/4/5 yet that does not mean that the income assessable under section 68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the instant case, source of unexplained cash credits was not known therefore same be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute income from ‘other sources’, the source, namely, the ‘other sources’, has to be identified. Income from unexplained or unknown sources cannot therefore be considered or taxed as income from other sources.
DCIT Vs. Summit Securities Ltd. In view of the detailed discussion made above, we are with utmost respect unable to concur with the view expressed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Zuari Industries Ltd. (supra) and Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Paper Base Co. Ltd. (supra). Thus the question referred to the Special Bench is answered in negative by holding that the Assessing Officer was not right in adding the amount of liabilities being reflected in the negative net worth ascertained by the auditors of the assessee to the sale consideration for determining the capital gains on account of slump sale.
CIT(A) deleted addition on account of key man insurance policy relying on ITAT|s decision in assessee|s own case for assessment year 2005- 06 in which the Tribunal in ITA No. 1722/Ahd/2008, date 6-3-2009 and held that premium paid under key man insurance policy on the life of the partners cannot be disallowed. Revenue contended that they had not accepted the order of the Tribunal on this issue for assessment year 2005-06 and appeal was filed before the Gujarat High Court. Held: Merely because the department did not accept the order of Tribunal deleting addition on account of key man insurance premium, and preferred appeal before the High Court, it is no ground to take a different view.
The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) in which he is or becomes a partner or member, by way of capital contribution or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as his income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place and, for the purposes of section 48, the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm, association or body as the value of the capital asset shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset.
ITAT held that tax withholding provisions under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are not applicable to payments made by the Indian head office to its foreign branch, as both are ‘residents’ according to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 and the relevant Double taxation avoidance agreement (the tax treaty) between India and the US. Furthermore, sales made by the Indian HO to its foreign branch are eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act and are therefore to be included in the ‘export turnover’ when calculating deduction under section 10A of the Act of the Act.
assessee is eligible for the exemption under Section 54EC. I further find that the Mumbai bench, ITAT has held in the case of JCIT v. Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya (2005), 95 ITD 313 (copy filed) that for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act, it is sufficient compliance with the section that the assessee purchased the new flat in the names of himself, his father and mother and that it was not the requirement of the section that the new flat should be in the assessee’s exclusive name. It was held that the main condition of the section was that the sale consideration should be invested in the new house. I respectfully follow the ratio of the above decision. I accordingly confirm his order and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue with no order as to costs.
Tribunal held that it was an impossible task for the assessee to comply with the time period laid down u/s 54EC. The delay in purchase due to non-availability of the bonds was held to be a reasonable cause, and the assessee was held to be entitled to exemption u/s 54EC. The Tribunal also noted that in the case of Ram Agarwal 81 ITD 163, on similar facts, it had been held by the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 54EC. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.
