The Tribunal had to consider whether an assessee liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax u/s 115JA was also liable to pay interest u/ss 234B & 234C for short-fall in payment of advance tax. The Judicial Member followed the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd 313 ITR 170 and held that interest u/ss 234B and 234C could not be levied when book profits was computed u/s 115JA.
The Commissioner is empowered to call for such further documents or information or calls such enquiries in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the institution. If the Commissioner is satisfied that the condition laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (5) of section 80G are fulfilled, he shall record such satisfaction and grant approval.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the long term capital gain earned by the assessee is included in the net profit determined as per P&L account prepared as per Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. In other words, it is not the case of die assessee that the capital gain earned by the assessee was not included in the net profit determined as per P&L account of the assessee prepared under the Companies Act.
Even without going to all the strict interpretation, even otherwise on receipt of advance as per the agreement, if the assessee deposited the amount as required us 54EC. he cannot be treated as a defaulter for the same.
It is clear from plethora of authorities where after considering provisions of section 1l(l)(a) that so for as aforesaid provision is concerned, no distinction is made between charitable and religious purposes. A charitable institution can have religious purposes; whereas a religious institution may be partly charitable. Most of the decisions were given under 1961 Act.
When a part of the surrender can be accepted on proper explanation the rest can also be allowed to be explained. The assessee’s claim that balance was from cash withdrawals from cash book has to be tested on the facts appearing in the case. For that test it would be necessary that cash book be examined. Both members agree to that effect – the Accountant Member stating that if cash is found withdrawn it should be excepted whereas the Judicial Member directs to verify as to how the cash was generated in the cash book. In my opinion the later course appear to be more reasonable as the cash availability is to be examined with reference to entries made therein.
he assessee, a civil contractor, claimed deduction u/s 80-IA (4) in respect of the profits from infrastructure projects executed by it. The lower authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was a mere contractor and not a developer. On appeal, the Judicial Member upheld the claim on the ground that the assessee was a developer. The Accountant Member dissented and after taking note of the Explanation to s. 80-IA then proposed to be inserted by the Finance Bill 2007 w.r.e.f 1.4.2000, rejected the claim.
The assessee transferred a capital asset which was received by her by way of gift on 1.2.2003. The previous owner had acquired the capital asset on 29.1.1993. In computing capital gains, the assessee claimed that the indexed cost of acquisition had to be worked out by taking the date of acquisition by the previous owner.
SRF Ltd. v. DCIT, (ITAT Delhi) In the present case it is seen that the liability was discharged by way of issuance of shares. When the assessee issues shares the assessee does not incur any expenditure as the assessee is not to make any payment legally towards shares issued. The shares cannot be equated with debentures, which is purely by way of loan and the same are required to be repaid on maturity.
However, in the impugned case there is no material on record to suggest or to hold that any sincere attempt was made by the Revenue to make the service through normal mode. For the reasons discussed above, the decision in the case of Jagannath Prasad & Ors. Vs. CIT (supra) will have square application to the present case and relying on the decision in the case of M/s Ganeshi Lai & Sons (supra), it cannot be held that service of notice by affixture in the present case was a valid service.
