High Court placed reliance on same bench ruling in CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar (ITA No. 65/2013) wherein it was held that “the amended Section 40(a)(ia) expands and further liberalises the statute when it stipulates that deductions made in the first eleven months of the previous year
In the returns the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 10(13A) on the basis of the rent paid by him which has been debited from his salary directly. This Section exempts any special allowances specifically granted to an assessee by his employer to meet expenditure actually incurred on payment of rent for residential accommodation occupied by the assessee,
Assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act are invalid as no panchnamas were drawn in the names of 22 petitioners. Another aspect of the said contention relating to validity of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act has been also raised.
In this case only interest of Rs 2,96,731/- was paid on funds utilized for making investments on which exempted income was receivable. Further it was observed that in respect of investment of Rs. 6,07,775,000/- made in subsidiary companies , they are attributable to commercial expediency, because as per submission made by the assessee,
Mere production of PAN Number or assessment particulars does not establish the identity of a person. The identification of a person includes the place of work, the staff and the fact that it was actually carrying on business and further recognition of the said company/individual in the eyes of public.
There are two types of cases. One in which the assessing officer carries out the exercise which is required in law and the other in which the assessing officer ‘sits back with folded hands’ till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions.
A reading of the aforesaid passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in HEG Limited (supra) indicates that it would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when part payment is made as interest on interest. What has been elucidated and clarified by the Supreme Court is that when refund order is issued, the same should include the interest payable on the amount, which is refunded.
Once an application for admission u/s 245C is filed before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, then the said application must be dealt with in accordance with law, i.e., refer to the contentions of the petitioners, the contention of the Revenue and then an objective, considered and a reasoned decision has to be taken.
Merely because expenditure has been incurred for material for duplication without acquisition of proprietary and when the expenditure is not of capital nature, the said Section would not be applicable.
Delhi HC has held on 22.11.2013 in the case of DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX Vs. INFRASOFT LTD. that by sale of software what has been transferred is not copyright or the right to use copyright but a limited right to use the copyrighted material and does not give rise to any royalty income.
