Where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profits but to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it cannot but be regarded as an institution established for charitable purposes and proviso to section 2(15) could not be applied so as to deny exemption under section 11.
The remuneration to the members of the HUF were paid for the services rendered in the business which is allowable U/s. 37(1) and invoking the provisions of Section 184 and Section 40(b) does not arise on the facts of the case at all.
This is an appeal by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati, dated 31-03-2017, treating the deposits made in the bank account as business turnover, whereas AO was of the opinion that these are unexplained income U/s. 68 of the Act.
M/s. Sri Sai Datta Mutual Aided Co-operative Credit Society Vs Asst. (ITAT Hyderabad) The AO and CIT(A) have considered the ordinary members and nominal members are different class of members. AO accepts that ordinary members are having mutuality but he denies the same with reference to nominal members. The principle of mutuality cannot be denied […]
Briefly stated, the institution, Sri Visa Vadnagar Vanik Samaj, has earlier stated to have filed an application on 07-10-1988, seeking registration U/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act]. It seems the said application has not been accepted/rejected by the Department. For the A.Y.2003-04 the AO has rejected the claim of assessee for exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act and has added an entire amount of Rs. 2,53,146/- to the income of assessee.
When assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year, disallowance under section 14A could not be made.
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-V, Hyderabad, dated 31/08/2016 confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act dated 4.3.2015.
In accordance with the view expressed by the third member, Hon’ble Vice-President, Hyderabad, the ground of appeal No.4 is partly allowed and the AO is directed to allow the deduction from the book profit of sum of Rs.22.89 crores while computing the taxable income u/s 115GB of the I.T. Act. The ground of appeal No.4 is therefore, treated as allowed.
The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of matching material for women clothing and she was also running a tailoring centre. For the year under consideration she declared total income of Rs. 1,33,900/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 52,450/-.
If the assessee has subscribed to the preferential warrants as an investor, then the share application money assumes the character of capital expenditure and the loss incurred by the assessee on forfeiture of the initial payment already made by the assessee is capital in nature. But if the assessee is trading in shares and in the course of such business, if it has incurred loss, it would be revenue expenditure.
