ince the assessee did not carry on any profession in the relevant previous year, the receipt cannot be taxed u/s 28 of the Act, since Section 176 (4) does not contain any deeming provision treating such receipt as income falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation” and also, it cannot be taxed as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act.
A careful consideration of the assessment order would reveal that AO while holding that assessee is liable for deduction of tax at source under the provisions of sec. 1941 of the Act has mainly rested his case on the ground that is the rent as defined in explanation u/s 1941 and the assessee has paid rent in respect of buses utilized by him being in the nature of plant.
Whether Ld.CIT(A) is correct in denying additional claims on the ground that claims were not made by way of filing the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee did neither claim those additional claims in the Original/Revised return nor claimed before Assessing Officer but were claimed first time before the ld.CIT(A)?
Where, the assessee, apart from furnishing the permanent account number of the creditor, has also furnished their balance sheet, copy of income tax return, confirmation, bank account etc. The amount advanced to the assessee is duly disclosed in the balance sheet of all the creditors.
That mere incorporation and receipt of share application money cannot be said to be commencement of the business. Neither any interest income has been earned from against advances nor any goods or services been obtained.
The appellant is a doctor, surgeon specializing in liver transplant. It is a fact that the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting on a regular basis. The appellant has received life time consultancy fees which is accounted as advance from patients as per the principles of mercantile system of accounting.
Admittedly, learned CIT(A) admitted the fresh evidences but did not allow any opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examining those evidences or furnishing any evidence in rebuttal as required by sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A.
The undisputed fact accepted by the assessee is that Mr. Tarun Goyal was running a racket of providing accommodation entries by floating numerous companies. The modus operandi brought out by the AO in the assessment order, is not disputed by the assessee.
During the year only an amount of 4 lakh was invested out of the total investment of 3.39 crores. In the earlier years the assessment of the assessee were completed u/s 143(3) and the AO did not make any disallowance u/s 14A. The term loan taken by the assessee was for specific purposes and it cannot be alleged without proof that the term loan granted by the bank for specific purposes,
Whether the advances made by one trust to another trust registred u/s 12A of the Act and used by that trust for charitable purpose would qualify for exemption u/s 11 of the Act by the first trust irrespective of accounting treatment followed?
