Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs. ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 193 (SC) has clearly held that in case the provisions of Section 22 are applicable the property is to be assessed as income from house property.
We would not hesitate to observe that the lower authorities which have hushed through the facts to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of principle of preponderance of human probability, had however absolutely failed to appreciate that the said principle could have been validly applied only on the basis of a considerate view as regards the facts of the case in totality, and not merely on the basis of the stand alone statement of the aforesaid third party, viz. Sh. Mukesh Choksi.
Provision of Explanation 2 to Section 132(B)(4) which excludes advance tax from the ambit of existing liability is applicable from 1st June 2013 and not applicable to the assessment years involved in this appeal. In the background aforesaid discussion of precedent we find that assessee was entitled to adjustment of cash seized and offered for taxation towards its liability for taxes including advance tax.
Since advertising agency only acting as an intermediary between assessee radio broadcasting station and the advertiser, raised bills to the advertiser on net amount charged by the assessee, charging separate commission from the advertiser, deduction from the gross amount was in the nature of discount only and not commission, therefore, liability to deduct tax under section 194H did not get attracted.
Notice issued under Section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity to contest the same.
Challenging the order dated 3-5-2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, the assessing officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, deriving income from house property, filed its return of income on 18-10-2007, declaring loss of Rs. 1.5 crores. The assessing officer completed the assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, on 4-12-2009, determining its income at Rs. (-)9.46 lakhs.
if relevant details of address or PAN Identity are furnished to the Department along with the copies of shareholder register, share application form, share transfer register etc, it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable explanation by assessee.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 14,36,653 which was made by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I. T. Act by treating the purchase are genuine without appreciating the fact that the notices u/s 133(6) issued to the parties were returned unnerved as addressee was not available at the given address.
Issue before us is as to whether the assessee trust, which is for the sole benefit of an individual, will be entitled to deduction u/s. 54F or not, when its status is that of A.O.P. As per Section 54F the benefits of this section is available to individual or Hindu undivided family (HUF). Hon’ble jurisdictional […]
1. Research and development services provider could not be compared to a company and Transfer pricing Adjustment are not sustainable. 2. A concern mainly engaged in sale of chemical compounds could not be considered as a right comparable with that of assessee rendering support services in connection with research and development of certain products to an […]
