The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad on Wednesday ordered that the allowances received by a Member of Legislative Assembly is to be exempted from Income Tax.
Contention of the assessee that the non-compete fee is the business expenditure of the assessee has been upheld. The assessee has always contended that it is its business expenditure and therefore, it was required to deduct the tax at source u/s 194J of the Act. For failure to deduct the tax inspite of being liable to do so, the penalty u/s 271 C is clearly leviable.
Since the assessee has not shown any profit nor paid any remuneration to any of the members, the provisions of section 40(ba) will not be attracted.
It was the explanation of assessee that the legal opinion given by the Counsel that there is no capital gain on the STT paid transactions, was not accepted by AO stating that she is a promoter of a company and has a battery of legal advisors and her husband also has legal knowledge.
In the given case, memebrs of JV decided to form a JV only to secure the orders and execution of the orders was to be done by one of the constituents of the JV. JV was formed for the benefit of the individual members and a business was carried on for the benefit of the businessman. There was no sub-contract relationship existed between JV partners. Accordingly, the work executed by the AMRCL was not in sub-contract. Ground raised by revenue was dismissed.
Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that interest income earned from deposits of share capital as fixed deposits in bank should be considered as capital receipt which is not taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Jyothirmoy Yamsani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the instant case, the assessment order categorically indicates that penalty is leviable on both counts and even penalty order details the nature of default on the part of the assessee, followed by a specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Under […]
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that since the reason on which the proceedings under section 147 ceased to exist, the assessing officer is not justified in making additions on other issues.
Where assessee failed to deposit the unutilized sales consideration under Capital Gain Account Scheme within the period specified under section 139(1) or 139(4), AO was justified in restricting the claim of deduction to the expenditure incurred upto the due date of filing return of income.
It was held that exemption under Section 54 only requires that the property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief under Section 54 even if such independent units were on different floors.
