ection 10A, as it presently stands, though worded as deduction provision, is essentially and in substance an exemption provision. We have also held that the implication of an exemption provision is that the particular income which is exempt from tax does not enter the field of taxation and is not subject to any computation.
As per order passed by the ITO (TDS), he has issued show cause notice to know the reason why the assessee has not quoted the PAN of the deductee in Form No. 16 and 16A. But the assessee had not given any explanation before the ITO (TDS), even the assessee has also failed to appear before him on the date fixed.
Change in the constitution of the firm and its dissolution [Section 63(1)] – When change occurs in the constitution of the firm, any of the new, continuing or the outgoing partner, while when a registered firm is dissolved, any person who was a partner immediately before the dissolution or the agent of any such partner or person specially authorized on his behalf, may give notice of such a change to the Registrar, specifying the date thereof.
The main contention of the Income Tax Department is that the Scheme is floated with the sole object to avoid tax liability. Except the Income Tax Department no objections were raised by anyone against sanctioning the Scheme.
Till 31.03.2011, point of taxation in case of eight specified services including Chartered Accountants (CAs) was determined on the basis of receipt of payment. However, w.e.f. 01.04.2011, this benefit has been extended to all services albeit, in a slightly modified form. Now all individuals, partnership firms (including limited liability partnership firms) having a turnover not exceeding Rs. 50 lakh in the previous year can pay service tax on receipt basis in the current financial year.
Therefore, it emerges that MAT payable u/s 115JB is only income tax and does not include surcharge or education cess. Therefore, if only income tax is paid under the provisions of section 115JB it is natural that tax credit u/s 115JAA will only be of income tax and not of surcharge and education cess.
Since the assessee only distributed the income in terms of the agreement and this did not amount to incurring of an expenditure nor the assessee claimed any, there was no infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
It is settled law that suspicion howsoever strong, it cannot take place of actual evidence and, hence, the contention of the revenue that assessee was in possession of cash throughout the period of six assessment years has to be rejected.
Taxation of services in India has been a learning experience for not only the tax payers but also the tax administrators. The gradual expansion of the list of taxable services from an initial three to more than one hundred has posed its own challenges. The Finance Act, 2012 has started to change this all and usher in a new system of taxation of services; popularly known as the Negative List.
In the present case, the assessee was allotted two flats on two different stories which he claimed as eligible for exemption u/s 54. Admittedly there is no unity of construction between such flats. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sushila M. Jhaveri (supra) has categorically held that the exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of one house and not more than one.
