Ld. AR submitted that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Deepak Bhargawa in I.T.A. No.343/Del/2012 dated 13.11.2014 had clearly held that section 194C would not be applicable for reimbursement of expenditure.
he payment made by the assessee as referral fees is directly proportionate or percentage of an amount received by the assessee for providing CT scan and MRI scan and such payment comes within the term ‘Commission or Brokerage’.
Any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would always partake the character of agricultural income itself. The consideration stated in the Registered Sale Deed was agricultrual income. Likewise, the on money also should be treated as agricultural income.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was trying to substitute a legally permissible view taken by the Id. AO with another view which was not a rational one. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra) has clearly held that revisionary powers u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked for substituting a lawful view taken by the Id. Assessing Officer, with another view.
Admittedly, the contributions of the assessees to the Provident Fund are not a recognized Fund, the same are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80C (2) (vi) of the I.T. Act.
In the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. ACIT , ITAT Cochin held that The loss on sale of shares of a wholly-owned subsidiary is allowable under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as a business loss if the investment in the subsidiary was made for commercial purposes.
Thus, post 1st June 2015, in the course of processing of a TDS statement and issuance of intimation u/s 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the ‘fee’, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E. Prior to 1st June 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act.
Interest income on investments of Service Co-operative Banks is business income eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(1) and not income from other sources. SC decision in Totgar case not applicable in this case.
The ITAT Bench Cochin held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s 80 IB(7) if its incomes are derived from eligible business irrespective of the manner in which the entries in the books of account are maintained.
The assessee had contended that the Assessing officer was not entitled to make adjustments to book profit shown in the audited The question that had arisen was whether the Assessing officer was entitled to disturb the net profit shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account prepared as per the Companies Act, 1956.
