When the amount which was deposited in the bank was not an amount due to members and it was not the liability of the society to the members then the interest earned from the deposits in the bank was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P (1) as well as 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
In Shanders Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, the ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the expenditure incurred in relation to issuance of debentures as it constitute revenue expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The two beneficiaries were minors and therefore the assessing officer has arrived at an income of Rs. 3,65,040/- as income includable under section 64(1A) of the Act. As the income of the Trust depends on the claim of expenditure made by the co-owners, the working of assessing officer in the assessment order is fair and reasonable.
AO was not justified in making addition in the hands of assessee, without allowing the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi, whose statement was relied upon for making the above additions.
Under the provisions of section 292B, certain acts are not to be treated as invalid by reason of mistake or defect or omission either in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings. In other words, notice cannot be invalidated by reason of any mistake such as one occurred in the present case i.e. mentioning section 153A instead of 153C.
The only mistake on the part of AO was in mentioning section 153A, instead of section 153C. If this mistake was not allowed to be cured, the very purpose and object of enacting section 292B would be defeated as impugned notice in substance and effect, was in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act.
These are appeals filed by the assessee-firm directed against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Gulbarga, dated 29-1-2016 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
If the assessee is able to establish that it was only a notional provision which was reversed afterwards, then no TDS liability can be imposed on the assessee.
The learned Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Bengaluru has erred in not allowing credit in respect of TDS deducted and deposited by certain customers wrongly in the erstwhile name of the appellant (IT &T Technology Services Limited now known as IGATE Infrastructure Management Services Limited) of Rs. 61,84,211.
Since, no specific format is provided under the Act for recording satisfaction for making dis allowance under section 14A, AO was not required to give detailed reasons for invocation of rule 8D(2) in view of the fact that assessee failed to discharge its primary onus of proving nexus between interest-free funds and the investments yielding tax- free income.
