Commission paid to private doctors for referring patients for diagnosis could not be allowed as a business expenditure. The amount which can be allowed as business expenditure has to be legitimate and not unlawful and against public policy.
CIT Vs. Saranapal Singh (HUF) (Punjab & Haryana Court)- In the instant case, it was held that where the assessee had received a certain amount as short term loan and was duly repaid the said amount could not be treated as income of assessee under section 56(2)(v) of the Act.
CIT Vs. Jaswand Sons (2010) 328 ITR 442 (P&H) – On this issue, the High Court held that income derived from sale of export incentive cannot be said to be income ‘derived from’ the industrial undertaking and therefore, such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB.
The plea of alternative remedy cannot be accepted as question involved in the present case is of lack of jurisdiction on admitted facts. In the present case, the petitioner furnished all the information and raised a dispute of taxability relying upon the judgment in Kone Elevators (India) Ltds case (supra). In such a situation there could be no question of attempt at tax evasion. Invocation of jurisdiction to impose penalty at the Information Collection Centre was not called for.
P&H High Court in a ruling in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT held that Assessee gets title to the properly on the issuance cf an allotment letter and the payment cf instalments is only a consequential action upon which the delivery of possession flows and in calculation of holding period the period from the date of allotment and upto the date of possession will also be counted.
Under section 2(1)(v) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (‘HGST Act’), ‘sale’ included supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.
The Assessing Officer added the difference between purchase price disclosed in the sale deed and purchase price of the property adopted for the purpose of paying the stamp duty to the total income of the assessee as income from unexplained sources. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this addition by holding that section 50C is a deeming provision for the purpose of bringing to tax the difference as capital gain.
Appeal by revenue against the order of Tribunal setting aside penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee did not have the requisite mens rea to evade payment of service tax
On further appeal by the respondent-dealer who issued invoices, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2009, reduced the penalty to 10% taking into account that 100% penalty had already been levied on the assessee who claimed Cenvat Credit wrongly. 100% penalty has already been levied on the assessee wrongly claiming the benefit of Cenvat Credit, the view taken by Tribunal in reducing penalty in the case of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse so as to hold that a substantial question of law arises.
Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Sub-section (1) of Section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8% of the gross receipts paid or payable to the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or a sum higher than the aforesaid sum as may be declared by the assessee in his return of income notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43C of the Act. This income is to be deemed to be the profits and gains of said business chargeable of tax under the head “profits and gains” of business. However, the said provisions are applicable where the gross receipts paid or payable does not exceed Rs.40 lacs.
