Rajasthan High Court held that the CBDT had clearly provided that prescribed limit of jewellery will not be seized, it would mean that taxpayer, found with possession of such jewellery, will also not be questioned about its source and acquisition.
Hon’ble Rajasthan HC has held in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Singh that the Judgment of ITAT in various cases passed by this case are stereo typed, non-speaking, unreasoned, arbitrary and whimsical andremand the matter back to the ITAT to re-visit the issue afresh de-novo
The dispute relates to a point as to whether TDS is to be deducted on the amount payable on account of service tax or not? The Tribunal has considered the agreement and recorded a finding that as per the term of contract, the amount of service tax was to be paid separately, therefore, the same was not subject to TDS.
We have considered the provisions of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, in the light of Circulars dated 28.04.2008 and 30.06.2008. The words, “any sum paid”, used in Section 194J of the Act, relate to fees for professional services, or fees for technical services.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (‘ITAT’) in relation to the assessment proceedings concerning the respondent assessee for the assessment years 2001- 02, 2002-03 and 2000-01.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal both were satisfied with regard to identify and creditworthiness of the donors and genuineness of the gifts. Learned Tribunal also satisfied that there is no room to doubt about love and affection of the donors with the assessee as donors were brothers of the assessee. Therefore, gifts could have been given without any occasion and only for the love and affection with the assessee.
We hold that the impugned circular dated 1.1.2013 obligating the concerned authorities to initiate recovery proceedings on the expiry of period as mentioned therein so far as it relates to the situations where appeals with stay applications have been filed, but no stay had been granted and the stay applications had been kept pending for reasons not attributable in any manner whatsoever to the petitioners/assessees and resultantly, no interim relief had been granted, is non est.
A plain reading of the said provisions would reveal that what is required for the purpose of seeking approval thereunder is that the University or other educational institution should exist ‘solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit’. It is nowhere the case and/or finding of the learned CCIT that on account of the said defect in the admission procedure, the Trust ceased to exist solely for educational purposes and/or it existed for the purposes of profit.
If demand of tax raised by the Assessing Authority is more than twice the admitted tax liability, then recovery of difference of tax has to be kept in abeyance during pendency by first appeal before the CIT (Appeals) as per the CBDT instructions.
Detention of the assets has been provided and permitted only so long as there is some outstanding demand of tax and penalty against an assessee or expected liability of such tax or penalty; obviously to safeguard the interest of Revenue for the realization or recovery of such demand of tax, interest and penalty.
