It has also been argued that while computing the perquisite value the salary from only one employer should be considered. We are however unable to accept the argument. The computation of perquisite value as per the rule is based on the annual salary and not on the basis of salary from one employer
Provisions of s. 124(3) are self- explanatory. No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Undisputedly, assessee did not raise this issue either after the expiry of one month from the date
The assessee has filed these appeals challenging the respective orders of Learned CIT (A)-VI Mumbai for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. As the issue as well as facts are identical hence both these appeals are disposed off by this common order.
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has called into question correctness of order dated 7th February 2006, passed by the learned CIT (A) for the assessment year 2000-091, holding that the assessee is liable to pay tax on short term capital gains on sale of shares.
The assessee paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC after the grace period but before the due date for filing the return. The AO disallowed the payment u/s 36(1) (va) and held that s. 43B had no application. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal, HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:
S. 10 (38) inserted w.e.f. 1.10.2004 provides that long-term capital gains (LTCG) on which security transaction tax (STT) is paid shall not be included in total income. The assessee earned long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 33,01,57,200 on sale of shares after 1.10.2004 in respect of which STT was paid. The LTCG was exempt u/s 10 (38).
The finding of the Tribunal that 12.5% of net ad revenues is arms length price, was not challenged by the Revenue, we uphold the findings of the first appellate authority. Money received from a holding company with whom the assessee does not have any trading or business transaction cannot be considered as trading receipt.
ITAT Ruling: The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot exceed his limitation by following any method to determine the arm’s length price which is not authorized by the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Rules [CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT (2010-TIOL-68-ITAT-MUM)].
We have heard the arguments put forth by both the sides along with the case law relied upon. Having held above that the interest on income-tax refund does not fall under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’, it remains to be examined as to whether deduction u/s.80P is restricted only to the income falling under this head
In order to make an addition on the basis of surrender during search or survey, it is sine qua non that there should be some other material to co-relate the undisclosed income with such statement.
