Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT has in the case of Shri G.N.Mohan Raju,v/s ITO in ITA No.242 & 243(Bang) 2013 has held that notice u/s 143(2) issued prior to filing of return in response to notice u/s 147 is invalid, even if return is filed late.
Admittedly, the undisputed fact is that the assessee in the case on hand, has not deducted tax at source on the payments made to Shri Uday Kumar Shetty amounting to Rs.1,53,78,795/-. As submitted by the ld.AR, as far as the payments made by the assessee to Shri Uday Kumar Shetty
Authorised Representative submitted that as per section 54F(1), the only condition required to be satisfied for the assessee to avail the exemption thereunder was that the assessee should within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer
It is clear from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had commenced construction of the building within a period of three years from the date on which the property on the transfer of which capital gain arose.
It is not in dispute that Mrs. Shyamala Vijai and Mrs. Poornima Shivaram were entitled to half share each over the property that was sold to the appellant. In fact, as we have already seen, the sale deed clearly acknowledges the receipt of sale consideration of Rs.1 .20 crore by both the vendors
conditions for grant of exemption up to Rs.15,000 per employee towards medical reimbursement paid by the Assessee satisfies conditions contemplated by the proviso (v) to Sec.1 7(2) of the Act, can the AO deny the relief under the proviso (v) to Sec.17(2) of the Act?
It was contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee that since the AO has passed an order u/s. 195(2) of the Act allowing the assessee to issue shares without tax deduction at source, the issue of shares made by the assessee on 30.03.2004 and 30.09.2004 cannot be the subject-matter of proceedings u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act.
Discount under ESOP is in the nature of employees cost and is hence deductible during the vesting period w.r.t. the market price of shares at the time of grant of options to the employees. The amount of discount claimed as deduction during the vesting period is required to be reversed in relation to the unvesting/lapsing options at the appropriate time.
In the present case, admittedly there is no past demand which has remained unpaid. Therefore only when the Assessee files a return of income quantifying his total income for the assessment years in question can it be said that there has arisen tax liability for the relevant AYs. The due date for filing return of income or the fact that advance tax was due on a particular date will not make the liability of the Assessee an “existing tax liability” on those dates. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. R.V. Raibagy & Co. & others ITR Case Nos. 4 to 10 of 2003 dated 29.3.2005 has also taken the view that adjustment of seized cash against tax due u/s.140A of the Act, on income declared in a return of income filed should be allowed.
We find force in the submission of the learned counsel that payments to the government are to be paid once the mining lease is obtained and such payments are governed by various Acts along with the Apex Court making a ruling for State Governments to participate in the granting of mining lease by recovering compensation when their forests are uprooted. Therefore for this purpose, the funds are used for a natural regeneration which the assessee participates indirectly. Therefore at no point of time could it be said that the assessee had incurred a capital expenditure giving the assessee a benefit of enduring nature for the purpose of earning segmented income to render the same to income tax. In other words, the authorities below have not pointed out the income generated against the purported deferred Revenue expenditure so proposed by them in their impugned orders. The amount was incurred as a Revenue expenditure and is directed tobe allowed in the year it has been incurred
