In a big relied to Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Yogpeeth, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed exemption status under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
Invocation of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act to deny claim of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, grounds of appeal are allowed
From the proviso, it is evident that where the tax payable in respect of the transfer of a long term capital asset in the case of a listed company exceeds 10% of the amount of the capital gain before giving effect to the provisions of second proviso to Section 48, then such excess shall be ignored for the purpose of computing the tax payable by the assessee.
In all these appeals preferred by the assessee, the action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs.8,53,281 in assessment year 2006-07, Rs.73,54,710 in assessment year 2007-08, Rs.6,81 ,61 5 in assessment year 2008-09, Rs.49,48,020 in assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.10,56,756 in assessment year 2010-11 has been questioned.
ITAT Delhi held that any receipt directly and intimately linked with the procurement of capital asset is in the nature of capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. So such brokerage cannot be taxed in the hand of property buyer.
he factum of issuance of notice within time is to be proved on query by the authority whose jurisdiction is challenged for want of The aggrieved party cannot be asked to lead negative evidence in support of its claim.
Unsigned And Undated Paper Found During The Search With No Corroborative Evidence. Not Recording Of The Satisfaction By AO: Whether Additions To The Income Can Be Made?
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT held that Penalty can be imposed only on disproved claim of expenditure and not unproved claim of expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held that as to whether a transaction is entered into at an Arm’s Length Price or not must depend upon the facts of each case relating to the transaction per-se i.e. the transaction itself as the profit is only a possibility of the desired result with or without the aid of international transaction.
ITAT held that compensation received for loss of business activity is a capital receipt as it is injury to the profit making apparatus and not the loss of profits. Therefore, in the present case , non-supply of land by supplier which was to be used by the consortium was injury to profit making apparatus and hence capital receipt.
