Interest is a term relating to a pre-existing debt, which implies a debtor creditor relationship. According to us, unpaid consideration gives rise to a lien over goods sold and not for money lent. This interpretation of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
The issue of revenue’s appeal is that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance made by AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules at Rs.55,47,700/-. Here the assessee before the lower authorities and even before us explained that out of the total interest payment of Rs.97,22,656/-, the interest aggregating to Rs. 92,69,529/- was paid to Brila Global Finance Co. Ltd.,
The brief facts of the case are that the AO observed from the return of income filed by the assesee that the assessee’ s income included income from salary from Price Water House of which he was a partner. Since income by way of salary or remuneration from a firm was to be assessed
The short issue in this appeal is whether or not penalty under section 44AB will also be attracted in the case in which the professional income of the assessee received from partnership firm of Chartered Accountants is taxable under the head “income from business or profession
Explore the ITAT Kolkata ruling in DCIT vs Ashok Walia case for assessment year 2009-10. Key issues include return filing date and admission of additional evidence.
Here in the present case, there is no linkage or nexus between the funds borrowed by assessee and the impugned investments, hence, no interest expenditure can be disallowed by mechanically applying the Provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules.
The assessee earned income by way of dividend. During the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO asked the assessee for the details of expenditure incurred for earning the exempted income (dividend income).
The brief facts leading to above issue are that assessee incurred undisclosed expenditure for furniture, fixture, flooring etc. incurred in respect of Flat No. 501, at 20 Lee Road, Kolkata for asst. yr. 2008-09. The said expenditure was found recorded in RM-1 and RM-2. The expenditure of Rs. 35 lakhs was incurred by the assessee in connection with purchase of furniture of director’s flat at 20 Lee Road on behalf of M/s Fort Projects (P) Ltd. It is pertinent to note that no such addition of Rs. 35 lakhs on account of undisclosed expenditure was made by AO in very first place and this will be clear from perusal of assessment order for asst. yr. 2008-09,
The safeguard built in section 50C does envisage a situation that whenever assessee claims that the fair market value of the property is less than the stamp duty valuation of the property, a reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer and all these issues relating to valuation of the property – either on the issue of allowing a reasonable margin for market variations, or on the issue of making adjustments for agreements having been entered long ago, can be taken up, before the Departmental Valuation Officer and, therefore, subsequent appellate forums as well.
In the present case, the payment to the actual beneficiary is made by the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata and not by the Dy FA and CAO of Metro Railways Kolkata. No doubt, the tax deduction obligations are on the person who makes payment to the beneficiary, and it was an undisputed position that the payment for land acquisition was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In this matter, Hon’ble Court also observed that the tax deduction obligation are on the person who “had money in his possession and was responsible for making the payment of that income to the assessee (i.e. actual beneficiary of compensation in this case).” It is important to bear in mind the fact that the assessee is this case was the person receiving the compensation in his own right and not in any fiduciary capacity. Therefore, even going by this principle, the tax deduction liability is on the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata who makes the payment to the person receiving compensation.
