In ACIT v. Tripti Menthol Industries, the ITAT, Ahmedabad bench held that Security Guards employed by the assessee-unit must be considered as part of the workers engaged in the manufacturing process for the purpose of giving benefit under Section 80IB(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
Reference to DVO for determination of market value for the purpose of computation of capital gains under section 48 would be wholly redundant since main thrust of section 48 is the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset and not the fair market value thereof.
It is pertinent to note that the assessee has actually received the salary from his previous employers after deducting the notice period as per the job agreement with them. Therefore, in our considered view, the actual salary received by the assessee is only taxable.
Assessee is regularly in the business of purchase-sale of equity shares, share transactions entered during the year were in large number, funds were borrowed for the purpose of trading, no separate account has been maintained for the investment portfolio and all the transactions of purchase sale raised are only for one scrip namely Suraj Stainless Steel Ltd.
When the assessee has been alleging that he was only extending facility to his client for delivery of lignite and coal, he has not acted as an agent between client and truck owners. Therefore, in our opinion, merely on assumption basis, the assessee should not be burdened with tax liability.
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.
