The AO examined the details of legal and professional charges paid by the company and noticed that the claim of Rs.5 lacs paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd towards placement fees and earned dividend income which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The company did not make any disallowance for the purposes of section 14A of the Act.
A reading of Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra), makes it clear that revenues on account of mobilization are to be brought to tax in India. Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra) has been rendered by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, which happens to be the jurisdictional High Court in the present case. Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra), therefore, is squarely applicable to this case.
There is no material that shares and securities purchased in the year under consideration and classified as investment in books were actually intended to be held as long term investment. Profits realised by the sale of shares may be capital gain, if the seller is an ordinary investor changing his securities, but it may be business income, if the seller of the shares is trading in shares.
Subsequent reversal of a transaction among group entities isn’t colourable device, if effect carried in ledgers (a) Assessee is a charitable institution, there is no change in it’s objects. It carried on educational institutions and intended to further its objects by opening new schools and a university. (b) APIL owned reserved educational plots and it’s agreements to sale of such reserved plots with group educational trust do not carry any element of primary suspicion.
AO and the CIT(A) did not make any effort to verify the confirmations, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors in question and they also ignored the fact that the transaction of cash credits received and its repayment were made through bank and we also hold that the authorities below did not bring any incriminating material or evidence against the assessee trust to establish that the amount shown in the balance sheet as cash credits amounting to Rs.1,70,000 actually belonged or was owned by the assessee trust itself.
Sub-rule (3) of rule 18DA itself provides the consequence of violation of sub-rule (2). As per sub-rule (3), if at any stage it is found that any provisions of the Act or the rules have been violated, the prescribed authority specified may withdraw the approval so granted. Therefore, if there is a violation of sub-rule (2), the prescribed authority has to take action against the assessee by withdrawing the approval.
It is a settled law that the powers of the Commissioner of Income Tax is co-terminus with that of Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the particular enquiry that was not made by the Assessing Officer which was necessary in the facts of the case, should have been done by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A).
Interra Information Technologies (India) Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a 100% subsidiary of Interra IT Inc., a US based company. Interra IT Inc. enters into contract with customers and subcontracts a part/whole of the work to Interra India.
As per proviso attached to the sub-rule (5) of Rule 11AA of the Rules, it is a statutory requirement that no order of rejection of application u/s 80G(5) of the Act shall be passed without giving the institution, trust or fund an opportunity of being heard.
As is apparent from the aforesaid objects, society has been created for providing medical relief to the needy and poor. The ld. AR contended before us that 1st proviso to amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f., 01.04.2009 was not applicable in their case, the object of the society being to provide medical relief.
