Incomplete or under Construction Building not liable to wealth tax- Incomplete building of the assessee neither falls within the definition of a building, as contemplated under section 2(ea) of the Act, nor within the purview of urban land as excluded by Explanation 1(b) of the Wealth Tax Act.
ITAT held that a right acquired by the taxpayer to convert advance given into equity shares falls under the definition of ‘Capital Assets’ as per Section 2(14) Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act). Accordingly, the compensation received for foregoing right to acquire equity shares is a transfer of ‘Capital Assets’ and is taxable as capital gain under the Act.
the persons who merely execute the civil construction work or any other work contract has been encouraged by giving tax benefits. Thus the provisions of section 80IA shall not apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise referred to in the section but where a person makes the investment and himself executes the development work, he carries out the civil construction work, he will be eligible for the tax benefit under section 80IA
The assessee had participated in promotion of EECL, in order to safeguard its business of explosives and detonators in West Bengal. The assessee and EECL are in the same line of business and their activities are inter-connected, the assessee being one of the promoters of the former company. The purpose of giving advances to this related company was in the ‘course of and for the purpose of’ protecting the interests of business of the assessee.
Explore ITAT Mumbai’s decision on transfer pricing adjustment & interest receivable in international transactions, with key details & legal analysis.
The assessee in the present case has also raised the plea of reasonable cause, that the person advancing the loan was agriculturist and had no bank account. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Act.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the balance of convenience is in granting conditional stay. As declared in the open court, assessee is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- on or before 15th March 2012 and with regard to the balance outstanding demand assessee should furnish proper surety to the Assessing Officer. The Registry is directed to post the appeal for final hearing on 23rd April 2012. Since the date is announced in the open court the issuance of notice to the parties is dispensed with.
In our considered view, therefore, on the facts of the present case wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be denied the immunity under section 271AAA(2) only because entire tax, along with interest, was not paid before filing of income tax return or, for that purpose, before concluding the assessment proceedings.
There has been a lot of emphasis in the orders of the authorities below, as indeed in learned Departmental Representative’s arguments before us, about the scope of assessee’s obligations to deduct tax at source under section 194J. However, having regard to the fact that we are in seisin of the limited question of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), we see no need to deal with that aspect of the matter at this stage. As far as this appeal is concerned, all these things issues regarding tax deduction at source obligations will be relevant only if one is to come to the conclusion that section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked in respect of the payments in question.
The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in chemicals. The sales shown in the Profit & Loss Accounts were Rs. 3,15,85,478/- and against that purchases were shown as Rs. 93,31,117/- on which gross profit of Rs. 7.95% was declared. The assessee was required to submit month-wise details of sales and purchases according to which the total sales were reported at Rs. 3,22,81,924/- and purchases were reported at Rs. 3,04,17,709/-. Thus, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference of Rs. 6,96,447/- in the sales and Rs. 10, 86,596/- in the purchases.
