Thus, the concept of Mutuality postulates that all the contributors to the common fund must be entitled to participate in the surplus and that all the participators in the surplus are contributors to the common fund. It is in this sense that the law postulates that there must be a complete identity between the contributors and the participators.
However, the relevant certificate from the competent authority has not been submitted by the assessee as required under law for determination of the distance of land in question from Municipality etc.
In this case basic issue to be decided was about the interest payment made by the partnership firm to the partners in light of the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules.
The division bench of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in Lemes E. D’ Souza v. ITO, held that benefit of Investing in NHAI/ REC Bonds under section 54EC of the Income Tax cannot be denied to the assessee merely for the reason that the investment was made beyond 6 months from the date of transfer.
GP ratio needs to be estimated which definitely involved some estimation/guess work but the said estimation/guess work should be fair, honest and rational keeping in view factual matrix of the case and cannot be arbitrarily applied at the discretion of authorities.
Assessee had claimed deduction u/s 10(13A) of 1961 Act which is a wrong claim as no rent was paid by the assessee and the said alleged rent of Rs. 31,500/- per month being paid to mother was shown only to take exemption of HRA u/s 10(13A) of 1961 Act.
The assessee is a charitable trust and has challenged the confirmation of the order of the AO where he disallowed the accumulation of the 15% even when the income was allowed u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act. The AO observed that if the trust is not left with surplus and there is deficit, then there can be no accumulation made. He further stated that accumulation or setting apart of 15% of income has been allowed by virtue of provision of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, when assessee is unable to spend the entire amount and where the entire amount has been spent, there is no surplus left that can be accumulated.
It is very strange that FAA,being a judicial authority,has held that non providing opportunity of cross examination would not vitiate the assessment proceedings.If the AO/assessee wants to rely upon the statements of someone it is their duty to prove the truthfulness of such statements.
The undisputed fact is that ‘VHQ’, i.e. the recipient merely carried out post production activities. Nothing has been brought before us to indicate or show that in the process of carrying out any work, whether any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process was made available to the assessee.
Where earmarked rooms are let out for specified rate and specified period, only then, they will be construed to be accommodation made available on regular basis
