Tribunal held that the beneficial shareholders of the lender company are partners of the assessee- firm and therefore the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) has to be assessed only in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the assessee- firm.
In an assessee- favor ruling, the Cochin bench of ITAT said that the assessee, a primary agricultural credit society is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P (2) of the Income Tax Act, with regard to interest received on deposits made by the assessee with sub treasury.
ITO Vs M/s. Edanad- Kannur SCB Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) The undisputed facts are that the assessees in these cases are all primary agricultural credit society and they are registered as such under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Limited & Ors. (supra) had […]
Sri. P.P.Sharafuddin Vs. ITO (ITAT Cochin) The amount of Rs. 14 lakh was seized by the police from the assessee on 03.03.2008. At the time of seizure, the assessee did not mention that the amount seized belongs to his uncle. Because of the suspicious behavior and lack of explanation on the part of the assessee, […]
George Alexander Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) The Assessing Officer in para 6 of the assessment order had catalogued the unexplained deposits in various bank accounts. While working out the unexplained deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, the Assessing Officer had given due credit to the income declared by the assessee in the return of […]
Reimbursement of expenses against separate bills to C&F agents doesn’t require TDS and hence no dis allowance u/s 40(a)(1a)… ITAT Cochin bench held in the case of St. Mary’s Rubbers dismissing revenue’s appeal
ITAT held that as the assessee had produced a certificate showing that it was registered as Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the provision of Co-operative Societies Act, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80P(2).
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.
