Section 54EC provides for exemption from tax on long-term capital gain when the capital gain arises from the transfer of long-term capital asset and the whole or any part of the said capital gain is invested in certain bonds within the period of 6 months. Section 54EC speaks of the actual capital gain which arises out of transfer of long-term capital asset and not deeming amount. Whereas section 50C provides for deeming fiction where value of consideration is adopted as per the stamp valuation authorities or any authority of the State Government. Even if the property has been sold at a lesser price but under the deeming fiction of section 50C, the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities is to be taken as sale consideration.
Whether where assessee invested sale proceeds of tenancy rights in specified bonds, he was entitled to deduction under section 54EC even though his wife and daughters were co-holders of said bonds? Exemption Under Section 54F if Assessee claims two units as one he has to furnish Approved Municipal Plan.
The assessee is a club and all its activities are restricted to among its members and, therefore, ‘principle of mutuality’ applies in the instant case. It has been clarified by the Board vide its Circular No. 11 of 2008, dated 19-12-2008 that in such cases where principle of mutuality are applicable, registration cannot be cancelled simply by relying on the first proviso to section 2(15). No where it has been brought on the record that the activities of the assessee are not governed by ‘principles of mutuality’ or it has been dealing with non-members. Thus, from this aspect also first proviso does not apply to the instant case. In view of the above, the cancellation of registration under section 12AA(3) was not tenable.
It is a cardinal principle, when two sovereign nations enter into an agreement and have come to an understanding regarding the terms, views expressed in the agreement, such terms cannot be unilaterally changed. Once the Government of India and Government of UAE had not used the limitation clause of applicability of domestic law in determining the profits and deduction of expenses of PE under Article 7(3), the same cannot be read into even impliedly, that such a provision existed.
Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
During the year under consideration, the assessee company had made a payment of 1,09,35,108/- to Google Ireland Ltd. and the said amount was claimed as ‘advertisement expenditure’. While making the said payment, no tax at source was deducted by the assessee on the ground that the amount paid to Google Ireland Ltd. constituted business profits of the said company and since the said company did not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India, the amount paid was not chargeable to tax in India.
The fact that the assessee has received the amount in the capacity of beneficiaries has also not been controverted, therefore, the amount received by the trust is in pursuance of dissolution of trust. The amount received in pursuance of dissolution of trust cannot be termed to be an amount received by the beneficiaries “without consideration”. The fact that the trust had borne the tax at maximum marginal rate on its income has also not been controverted. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the addition cannot be upheld on the applicability of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act, as the money received by the assessee is not “without consideration”
Courts have laid down principles for deciding the question as to when income from sale of shares can be said to be income from business. The following are some of the important decisions in this regard: (a) Whether a transaction of sale and purchase of shares were trading transactions or whether they were in the nature of investments is mixed question of law and fact. Learned CIT(A) v. H. Holck Larsen, [1986] 60 ITR 67.
The assessee has made huge payments on account of weaving and processing charges to various parties including one S. Such an outsourcing of work amounts to work done in pursuance of a contract, even though it may not be written. There has to be some terms and conditions for processing and weaving of the cloths for doing it in a certain manner and also there has to be some kind of understanding for the quality and design.
Amended section 10B as well as section 10A, 10AA, 10BA were introduced in the Act with a specific purpose. All these sections can be classified as ‘special provisions’ with regard to allowable deductions in certain areas. Said sections contain an in-built mechanism for computing the profits arising out of the business activities of the units/undertakings. It is a fact that above sections, including section 10B talk about ‘deductions’, but it is also a fact that still they are part of Chapter III i.e., the chapter that deals with income which do not form part of total income.
