As held in D. Ananda Basappa’s case (1 supra) by the Karnataka High Court, the expression a residential house in Section 54 (1) of the Act has to be understood in a sense that the building should be of residential nature and a should not be understood to indicate a singular number
HC held that CIT had rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for approval under Section 10 (23C) (iv) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has not rendered its services directly to the farmers but is rendering its services directly to its clients/agents who are engaged in trading of the certified seeds with profit motive and therefore its activities are not for the ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’ and hence not for ‘charitable purpose’ in view of second limb of the first proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act.
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam, in its I.T.A.No. 477/Vizag/2008, dated. 09-04-20 12, pending ITTA.No. 384/2012 preferred to the High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam in ITA.No. 77/Vizag/2008 dated. 09- 04-2012 for the Assessment Year 2005-2006.
Levy of Service Tax on ‘Consulting Engineering Services’ was introduced with effect from 7-7-1997 while ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’ was brought under Service Tax net with effect from 16-7-2001 only. The assessee was not only providing ‘Consulting Engineering Services’ but also ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’ i.e. Scientific Research.
This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The following two questions have been referred to the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee with reference to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.
Section 65(19) of the Act defines business auxiliary service and excludes ‘information technology service’ which is defined in the Explanation to the said section as “any service in relation to designing, developing or maintaining of computer software, or computerised data processing or system networking, or any other service primarily in relation to operation of computer systems.
The principle is that the assessee has to prove the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor in order to discharge the burden cast on him, that a particular cash credit found in his books is genuine having regard to the nature and the source thereof and, therefore, cannot be added to his income under section 68.
Under Clause 2.1 of the assignment agreement dt.29.6.2001, CIDBI assigned and transferred the concession agreement in favour of the respondent and the respondent unconditionally agreed to accept the said assignment/transfer of the concession agreement and undertook to execute/perform the concession agreement as if the said agreement was entered into between NHAI and the respondent.
Assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director of the assessee company. They have considered the terms of the agreement dated 12-03-2003 among the parties to the joint venture and held that credit for TDS certificates cannot be denied to the assessee while assessing the contract receipts mentioned in the said certificates as income of the assessee. The income shown in the TDS certificates has either to be taxed in the hands of the joint venture or in the hands of the individual co-joint venturer. As the joint venture has not filed return of income and claimed credit for TDS certificates and the TDS certificates have not been doubted, credit has to be granted to the TDS mentioned therein for the assessee.
Assessee had received a gift of Rs. 22,76,750/-in U.S. dollars from an NRI, N.Mohan and the assessee had filed two confirmation letters, one in December 2006 and another on 10-07-2007 given by the donor stating that he had gifted the above amount to the assessee, that the assessee is his close relative, that he is a man of means owning a software company of a net worth of US $ 25 million, that he had gifted during the year 2002-03 Rs. 2.00 crores to rebuild a government school,
