Payments were made to truck drivers, who insisted for payment in cash was not exceptional case, because the assessee has not made payments to individual truck owners but to various brokers through whom the trucks were engaged, and therefore, the case of the assessee was not covered by the exceptions mentioned in Rule 6DD.
CIT(A) found force in the submission of the assessee that the interest at the rate of 12% was also taken as reasonable in the Income Tax Act under the provisions of section 40A(b)(iv) for the purpose of calculating interest to the partners. The CIT(A) also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Raj Steel Industries and Vipul Y. Mehta Vs. ACIT (supra) where the rate of interest at 18% to 24% was considered to be reasonable.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed travelling expenses amounting to Rs.4,29,01 1/-. The AO disallowed 50% of the claim because the expenses included the expenses of assessee’ s wife also.
Merely because, there was no separate lease agreement with various parties, is not decisive of the issue. The vehicles were given to various parties on per trip basis, and therefore, separate agreement for carting income for each trip with various parties is not practicable to be executed and produced before the Revenue authorities.
Liabilities are still outstanding in the balance sheet as on the last date of relevant accounting period in the statement of account submitted with the department. There is no material on record to prove that the said liabilities have ceased to exist.
Assessee cannot be said to be a hospital or medical institution as it is not engaged in dispensing medical facility though it is engaged in running a blood bank. Activity of the Assessee cannot be considered to be engaged in medical facilities so as to be entitled to exemption of income u/s. 11.
One thing is apparent that divergent view have been expressed by the Hon’ble Courts what is to be charged u/s.22 of the IT Act is the annual value of the property, irrespective of the fact whether or not any income is either actually received or accrued to the assessee.
The objective of the proviso to section 2(15) is to deny exemption to such assessee who are engaged in business activities in the garb of charitable purpose. Mere selling some product at a profit will not ipso facto hit the assessee by applying the proviso to section 2(15) and deny the exemption available u/s 11.
Requirement of the section 10(13A) is that any allowance (by whatever name called) granted to an assessee by his employer to meet expenditure actually incurred on payment of rent in respect of residential accommodation occupied by the assessee, to such extent as may be prescribed.
It is an undisputed fact that the income from lease has been considered by Assessee as income. It is also an undisputed fact that the AO has considered the lease entered by the Assessee to be a Finance lease to arrive at the conclusion that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation.
