Partnership firm can own assets only in the name of the partners. In the case of the assessee firm, the car is owned in the name of the partner of the firm. If the car is purchased from the resource of the firm or the purchase consideration is credited to the partner’s current account or capital account then it shall be construed that the firm is the owner of the car.
Assessee-producer having film production unit entitled for income tax deduction under section 80IB as assessee was running a production house and each new project for a new film, could not be considered as split up or reconstruction of the business already in existence.
Partners’ remuneration from firm should not be subject to the application of presumptive interest rate under section 44AD as the same could not be construed as gross receipts or turnover of a business independently carried on by a partner.
M/s. Kanchipuram Vaniga Vaisya-Dharma Paripalana Sangam Vs CIT (E) (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, this application seeking registration u/s.12AA of the Act, was filed on 10.07.2014. The Sub-section 2 of Sec. 12AA stipulates that an order granting or refusing the registration under Clause-B of Sub-Sec.2 shall be passed before the expiry of the six months from the […]
Smt. Annakkalanjiam Mathivanan Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals) have to appreciate the fact that the agricultural products in this country are traded in unorganized sector. The workforce in the agricultural sector is unorganized. When the agricultural products are traded in unorganized sector in the country, expecting the assessee […]
An individual coparcener who was shown as owner in the registered sale deed could not be assessed for capital gain arising in respect of the property belonging to Hindu Undivided Family.
Conclusion: Claim of assessee for long term capital gains arising on transfer of shares u/s.10(38) was real or sham, required a revisit by AO by considering all the evidences produced by assessee and also, AO should allow the opportunity of cross-examination to check the nature of transaction.
Schwing Stetter (India) Private Limited case: Where except for the debit entries, assessee did not produce any evidence to show that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business expenditure, held as unallowable for deduction while computing total income
Hence it would be an appropriate analogy that the entire amount which is liable to be treated as deemed dividend has to be apportioned between both the shareholders in whose cases the conditions stipulated for attracting the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied. Therefore as pleaded by the Ld.AR, it would be judicious to make addition in the hands of Shri V. Ramesh an amount of Rs.26,84,902/- and Shri S. Ramu – Rs.26,84,901/-. It is ordered accordingly.
Assessee come out with the plea that they were not provided with opportunity of cross-examining the witness, the investigation report was not furnished and proper opportunity was not provided of being heard. However we find that all these arguments raised by the assessee before us was never alleged before the AO when the matter was before them.
