As per order passed by the ITO (TDS), he has issued show cause notice to know the reason why the assessee has not quoted the PAN of the deductee in Form No. 16 and 16A. But the assessee had not given any explanation before the ITO (TDS), even the assessee has also failed to appear before him on the date fixed.
After reading statutory provisions as contained in section 80IB(1), 80IB(2) & 80IB(4) of the Act, we find that provisions do not provide in any way separate registration or maintenance of separate records for claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The requirement under section 80IB(1), 80IB(2) and 80IB(4) is that profit must derive from an industrial undertaking.
The operation theatre and surgical are highly technical equipments for the operation of the persons. Therefore, they cannot be maintained in a routine or normal manner, but a technical person is required for maintenance of such equipments. Similar is the case with RO system, CT scan machine, MRI machine, lift and sterlisation and medical equipments. Therefore, these contracts cannot be the contracts in a routine or normal manner but for which technical service has been rendered and provisions of section 194J, read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) are attracted.
Jammu Development Authority is an Authority established with the motive of profit constituted under the Jammu & Kashmir Development Act, 1970 and that the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine to the extent, mentioned hereinabove and the Ld. CIT, Jammu, has rightly being satisfied held that the Jammu Development Authority is not entitled to registration and accordingly cancelled the registration so granted.
The Commissioner (Appeals), without application under rule 46A and without recording any reason for admitting the documents and explanation filed before him and without affording reasonable opportunity to examine such evidence or documents filed before him by the Assessing Officer had decided the issue in favour of the assessee, which is clear violation of principle of natural justice.
Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited v CIT (ITAT Amritsar)- DEPB is an incentive. It is given under Duty Exemption Remission Scheme. Essentially, it is an export incentive. No doubt, the object behind DEPB is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty payment on the import content of export product. This neutralization is provided for by credit to customs duty against export product. Under DEPB, an exporter may apply for credit as percentage of FOB value of exports made in freely convertible currency. Credit is available only against the export product and at rates specified by DGFT for import of raw materials, components etc..
12. The phraseology, syntax and language used/employed by the legislature in section 144, as quoted hereinabove, are amply clear. As per this section, inter alia, if a person fails to comply with the terms of a notice under section 143(2), the A.O., after taking into account all relevant material gathered by him shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard
21. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the case of the Assessing Officer was based on the statement of Shri Ramesh Kumar, which was not confronted to the assessee, which was incumbent upon the department to do, since it was a case of reopening of a completed assessment.
60. Consider that what sections 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Income tax Act obviously envisage is one single municipality and not two. When the land under consideration admittedly falls outside the Phagwara municipality, as notified by the Central Govt. in accordance with section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. There is no question of it being considered within the limits of the Jalandhar City municipality
“50C Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases – (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Stamp Valuation authority’ for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer
