In our-view, the receipts do satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 80R that the services are rendered in his capacity as a teacher or research worker in such Institution, Association of Body. The amounts are not his professional receipts as he has no permission to practise in a foreign country.
The claim of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied merely based on the flimsy grounds that the assessee serves alcohol to the members and their friends in the club. Serving alcohol is part and parcel of the activities of any club and it is an integral part of the activities of the club.
The argument of the Ministry of Law & Justice that the ITAT could not go into interpretation of Rule 13E is not acceptable because in accordance with the duty of the Tribunal to give a proper hearing to the parties, the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to consider whether the parties who are appearing before it are properly entitled under the law to make appearance
The dispute raised in this appeal is whether F & O transaction can be considered as speculative transaction or not. The speculative transactions have been defined in section 43(5) as transactions in which contract for purchase or sale of any commodity including stock of shares is periodically and ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of commodity or scrips.
During the course of survey on 05.11.2004, the assessee had agreed to the addition of Rs. 14.06 lakhs on a/c of difference in stock and Rs.0.49 lakhs as difference in cash in hand (total Rs. 15.34000) This addition has accordingly been made in the net profit subject to non-initiation of penalty and prosecution proceedings as stipulated in me statement recorded during survey.
PICK-UP and drop transport facility provided by employers is not a perquisite and hence not liable to tax, according to a recent ruling by a tax tribunal. In a decision that has implications for the sectors such as BPO and IT, the Mumbai Income-Tax Apellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that companies providing such a facility were not liable to deduct tax on the expenditure incurred on it.
The entire focus in the present appeal is to decide whether the returns filed by the assessee were valid or invalid or defective. Whereas the AO, on observing that the return was not properly verified in as much as it was not signed by the right person, declared it to be invalid and non-est. He further intimated the assessee vide para 5 of his communication dated 11.1.2000 that the act of wrong verification is not a rectifiable defect u/s 139(9) which provides that removal of any defect of a valid return of income.
The assessee, an employee of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) India, received from J&J, USA, on 12.7.1989 a “cashless” option to buy 2500 shares at the then prevailing market price of $ 57.88 per share. The options were exercisable in installments over 10 years starting 11.7.1991. On 13.8.1992 (AY 1993-94), the assessee ‘sold’ the options and made a gain of Rs. 5,44,925
what needs to be done by an assessing authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in examining the claim of an assessee that the payment made by such assessee was a deductible expenditure under $.37 of the Income-tax Act although called a penalty is to see whether the law or scheme under which the amount was paid required such payment to be made as penalty or as something akin to penalty,
In a nut-shell, it is held that the instance case is one of rendering multi-farious services for production of films by foreign companies in India and handing over the negatives to them in India. This does not involve export or transfer outside India by any means of any film software by the assessee.
