In absence of registered sale deed, the house boat purchased cannot be said as residential house and hence deduction u/s 54 cannot be allowed. Further The same cannot be equated with the residential house which is immovable property and hence deduction u/s 54 not allowed.
Assessee was not entitled to capital gain exemption under section 54 for purchase of houseboat as the same could not be equated with the residential house which was immovable property.
Assessee did not disclose income voluntarily but it was disclosed in pursuance to survey conducted under section 133A. Had there not been survey, the assessee would not have offered such undisclosed income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was correctly levied by AO.
Usance interest paid for the delayed payment to its holding company was not any part of purchase price of goods and was interest within the definition of term ‘interest’ under section 2(28A), therefore, assessee was liable to withhold tax under section 195 from said payment.
Commission payments made by assessee to Sahayak was on percentage basis depending on various parameters like number of farmers pouring milk, fat and SNF factor in milk, quantity of milk collected etc. which ensured payment was commensurate with work performed and thus, the nature of work carried out by the Sahayak were covered by provisions of section 194C instead of section 194H and accordingly tax was deducted on the same accordingly.
Rajkot bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that the notebooks and diaries found from assessee’s wife cannot be treated as Books of Accounts for the purpose of making addition under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot bench, while allowing the assessees’ appeal, held that the sale of land cannot be treated as business activity for the purpose of levying income tax even though there is a higher volume of sale consideration.
We note that GP rate on the accounted sales estimated by the assessee himself stands at 07.29%. We thus fail to understand as to how the GP for the unaccounted sale should be so lower at 03.56% which is less than half of the GP rate declared by the assessee himself on accounted sales.
In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jamnagar [CIT(A)- in short] in confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,528/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
In the present case, the ld.AO has granted depreciation at the rate of 15% without examining relevant provisions. It appears that his finding is based upon his experience and past impression. He was of the opinion that once Board has not granted higher rate of depreciation to cars, which are put in the business of hiring, or in public transportation, then how a partner, who used motor car for the purpose of business can be granted at a such rate.
