The consequence of non-production of certified copy will naturally lead to dis allowance of claims of deduction toward? payment of interest, remuneration, bonus etc. paid to partner by the firm by virtue of Section 185 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the production of certified copy of instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a – firm for any -assessment year commencing from 1993-94 on wards irrespective of whether such assesses was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94. In principle, we therefore, uphold the findings of the Tribunal.
The short question that arises for consideration is whether blending and packing of tea for export in the industrial unit in the Special Economic Zone amount to manufacture or production of an article qualifying for exemption under Section 10A of the Act, that is, during the period prior to introduction of “blending” as “manufacture” with effect from 10.2.2006.
From the nature of activities being pursued by the petitioners, particularly as contained in the ‘memorandum of association’ extracted by the respondent in the statement filed in WP(C) 6899/2009 (stated as more or Jess similar in the other case as well), it is very much evident that the derivation of income by the petitioner cannot be held as merely the income from property, so as to oust the involvement of ‘trade, commerce or business’ or any service in connection with trade commerce or business as contemplated under the statute, which requires to be exempted and appreciated in detail by the departmen
Question Nos. 10 and 11 pertain to assessee’s challenge against levy of interest under section 234B of the Act for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. RANCHI CLUB LTD., 247LT.R, 209 and decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. INCHCAPE INDIA (P) LTD.,
Even though standing counsel for the department contended that if the Director of Lottery has made unauthorised deduction it is for the assessee to pursue his remedy elsewhere, we do not think that the assessee can be expected to recover this amount through the litigation against the State Government On the other hand we feel that if the State Government is recovering income tax and retains it for itself payment to the Central Government
Question Nos. 2 to 6 pertain to one and the same issue, that is, whether IVP is a capital asset or not. It is seat from the orders of the Tribunal that investment in IVP is assessed in the case of the assessee as unexplained investment only to the extent of fresh investment made in the respective year and reinvestment after encashment of earlier deposits was in tact allowed.
The first question pertains to disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction on salary paid to doctors, staff and depreciation for car, furniture, etc. in the determination of professional income of the assessee. The assessee’s grievance is that the Tribunal rejected the claim for the reason that the claim was made for the first time before the Tribunal and the assessee never raised the issue in assessment before the officer or in first appeal before the first appellate authority.
The making and sale of advertising materials for customers in the form of banner or hoarding or film-slide, etc. is `advertisement’ as defined under section 65(2); all commercial concerns engaged in any of the activities connected with advertisement, which includes making, preparing, displaying or exhibition of advertisement, answer the description of `advertising agency’.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT vs. Shri. C. Najeeb regarding penalty on income determined under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. Discover key questions of law, such as whether the Tribunal’s decision to levy income tax on 15% of total receipts is correct. Dive into the intricacies of assessment and penalty proceedings, including insights on undisclosed income, civil liability, and the interpretation of Section 158BFA. Uncover the court’s findings, providing clarity on the computation of undisclosed income and the imposition of penalties in this significant tax case.
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the surrender will not be well-founded.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
