Undoubtedly, the present case raises the issue of balancing the interest of the Revenue, and the interest of an Needless to say, the Revenue does have the right to realise the assessed incometax amount from the assessee. However, while trying to realise the said amount, the Revenue cannot be permitted, and has not been permitted by the Circulars mentioned above, to act like a Shylock.
Once the shares of the beneficiaries are found to be determinable, the income is to be taxed of that respective sharer or the beneficiaries in the hands of the beneficiary and not in the hands of the Trustees which has already been shown in the present case.
By no interpretative process the explanation to Section 164 of the Act, which is pressed in service can be read for determinability of the shares of the beneficiary with the quantum on the date when the Trust deed is executed and the second reason is that the real test is the determinability of the shares […]
There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization.
CIT Vs Gokula Education Foundation (Karnataka High Court) Facts- Assessee claim an amount of INR 93,46,716 under section 11(2) by filing Form No. 10. In Form No. 10, assessee mentioned the object as ‘towards the object of the Trust’. Assessee filed revised Form No. 10 briefly specifying the object which was accepted by the Commissioner […]
Sale consideration received by the assessee is entitled to benefit under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, even though the transaction for purchase of new property was not completed and possession was also not handed over to the assessee within 2 years.
Utilization of capital gains in construction /Purchase of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of section 54 of the Act irrespective of the fact that transaction not being complete in all respects.
HC held that since before 01.06.2015 section 234E providing for late fee for delay filling of TDS returns was not linked to / not referred under Sec 200A processing of TDS returns. As a result of this the late fee charge was invalid and illegal.
When the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015.
The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon various decisions of the High Court and of the Apex Court, but in none of the decisions, the question arisen before the respective Court as to whether the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can be disturbed or upset at the stage of appeal before this Court, which is limited to the question of law. All decisions proceed on the basis that the nexus is established, which as per the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is not established in the present case. Hence, the said decisions are of no help to the appellant.
