The provisions of rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, shall apply with effect from the assessment year 2008-09; Even prior to the assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14A. For that purpose, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raju Bhatra reported in (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) has laid down the ratio that surcharge leviable under the Finance Act was a distinct charge not dependent for its leviability on the assessee’s liability to pay incometax but on assessed tax. Therefore, even without the proviso to section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to tax in the case of block assessment of search cases, the Finance Act, 2001 was applicable to block assessment under Chapter XIV-B in relation to the search initiated on April6, 2000 and according surcharge was leviable.
Assessing Officer noticed from audit report Form No. 3CD that the assessee has incurred contractual payments towards fabrication and erection expenses and deducted TDS. But TDS was not deposited within the time limit prescribed u/s. 201 of the Act. The same was deposited on 15.02.2006. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not contribute anything which supports his case.
It is not disputed before us that basement and ground floor were fully owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business by the assessee. This was accepted by the department in the AY 1998-99 as per details available on record. Once, the assessee is the owner of the asset and put the assessee for the purpose of business during the relevant FY, then the depreciation has to be allowed as per the details.
On the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A, this Bench of the Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that this disallowance should be restricted to 1% of dividend income. Following the same, in this appeal also we hold that the disallowance u/s 14A for earning exempt dividend income should be restricted to 1% of dividend income. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to do so and work out the quantum of disallowance. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed as directed above.
Calcutta High Court held that the fee or charges received by the Government for parting with its exclusive right to manufacture or vend intoxicants is neither a tax nor a duty nor a fee nor a cess. Here in the present case, the KMC’s exclusive right to built market and let out to shop owners on licence basis under licence agreement dated 15.02.1985 is not a fee as prescribed u/s. 43B of the Act.
The assessee has deposited the sale consideration within one month of receipt with NABARD for availing exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act. In such circumstances whether the assessee is eligible for claim of exemption or not ? In our view, in this type of case, the period of six months for making deposit u/s. 54EC of the Act should be reckoned from the dates of actual receipt of the consideration,
It is sine qua non for application of Section 50 C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both, but then a leasehold right in such a capital asset cannot be equated with the capital asset per se. We are, therefore, unable to see any merits in revenue’s contention that even when a leasehold right in land or building or both is transferred, the provisions of Section 50C can be invoked.
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports [216 CTR 195] wherein their Lordships observed Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Sec. 68 of I.T. Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their Individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment
There is no dispute to the fact that as per sec. 251(1) of the Act, the ld. C.I.T.(A) has no power to set aside any matter to the file of ld. A.O. for fresh verification and adjudication. Therefore, considering the fact that some additional evidence was admitted by the ld. C.I.T.(A) and he has set aside some issues to the file of ld. A.O. u/s. 251(1) of the Act, which he is not empowered to do, we deem it proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issues to the file of ld. A.O. for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
