Interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act
In the present case, the assessee was not having any trust deed. So it is quite difficult for the ld. Commissioner to arrive at a firm conclusion about the objects of the trust. In case the trust deed is being written after application for grant of registration, then that deed can never be seen through by the ld. Commissioner for satisfying himself.
These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 29th December 2015 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. Both of these appeals are being disposed of, as a matter of convenience, by this consolidated order.
Salary to the partner is being regulated by the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act. It is to be paid in accordance with the provision stipulated in the deed which should be in commensurate with the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act. On such salary payment, provisions of section 40 A(2) cannot be invoked.
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 10th Jul 2012, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10.
Bogus penny stock capital gains: Claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of presumption and surmises in respect of penny stock by disregarding the direct evidences on record relating to the sale/purchase transactions in shares supported by broker’s contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular banking channels and the demat account.
Section 251(2) provides that the Commissioner (Appeal) shall not embark on enhancement of an assessment unless the assessee has been granted a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such We find no reference to the issuance of enhancement notice in the appellate order of the CIT(A).
It is a fairly settled law that forfeiture of share application money which has been duly received by the appellant in terms of prospect and credited to capital reserve account was a capital receipt.
Revenue is believed to prove that the activities undertaken by the alleged company are not meeting commercial prudence and the working of this company is merely to provide accommodation entries.
It is correct that the terms of partnership provided payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent on capital of partners as well as remuneration to the working partners. The assesses, however, did not make payment thereof to the partners nor made any provision of liability in the books of account
