Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Nagpur) A plain reading of Section 263 makes it clear that, the precondition to exercise revisionary jurisdiction by the PCIT/CIT suo moto under it, is that the order of AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue is concern. Consequently, […]
Held that explanation 5 to section 43B has prospective effect. Hence, learned NFAC is not justified in disallowing the belated remittance of employees contribution to PF/ESI but paid within the due date of filing the return of income under the normal provisions of the I.T. Act.
Inordinate delay in filing of MAs is not a fit case for condonation, more so, because there is no specific provision in the realm of section 254(2) of the Act to provide for such condonation of delay in case of MAs.
Addition under section 68 of share application money received by assessee on the reason that summons issued under section 131 to the directors of the investment company for verification returned unserved was unjustified as assessee had substantiated share capital received by it by furnishing relevant details and no onus was cast on the assessee during relevant assessment year to produce the persons or the books from investment companies.
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue emanating out of the orders of learned CIT(Appeals)-III, Nagpur for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Since the issues are connected and the appeals were heard together
Surplus funds not immediately required for day to day banking were kept in Bank deposits. The income earned there from thus would be income from banking business eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
This is not denied that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The credit facilities cannot be provided until and unless the assessee receives the deposits. It cannot always be provided out of its own capital. Receiving of the deposit is necessary and essential for advancing the money on credit and earning the interest income. The deposits may not have been derived from the income for providing the credit facilities to the members.
AO has, as highlighted by the FAA, not produced any evidence that assessee was purchasing and selling plots of land in subsequent and earlier assessment years. AO is entitled to draw inferences and conclusions during assessment proceedings. But, the conclusion which adversely affect the interests of a tax-payer should be based on facts and same should be confronted to the assessee for rebuattal. FAA has given a categorical finding of fact that such a exercise was not undertaken by the AO.
Income Tax is a code in itself and for levying taxes certain terms have been defined in a particular manner and they carry special meanings. Word ‘person’ is one among them. So, in our humble opinion, State Government is a person for purposes of collecting tax at sources as per the provisions of Sec 206C of the Act.
It cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Technically Hindu is neither a religion nor a community. Therefore, expenses incurred for worshipping of Lord Shiva, , Hanuman, Goddess Durga and for maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose.
