After going through the order of CIT(A), We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
The language used in section 10(23C)(iiiad)speaks about existence of solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit if the annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed limit. However, if the aforesaid chart/income is analysed, we find that a huge abnormal profit has been created/earned by the assessee and the amounts are definitely beyond the prescribed limit.
Inasmuch as the department has received the amount due from the appellant quoting of wrong registration number in the concerned challans is only a technical error which can be rectified at the department’s end itself.
In the present case, both, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have found that the transactions in question are neither in the nature of loans or deposits. Under the circumstances, the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act would not be applicable. Consequently, the question of contravention of such provisions attracting penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Act would also not arise. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference.
The Income of LLP will be charged to tax in the hands of the LLP only and not in the hands of individual partners. Remuneration to partners will be taxed as “Income from Business & Profession” and share of profit in the hands of the partner is exempt from tax u/s 10(2A). The LLP is allowed to get deduction of remuneration paid to the partners subject to the maximum of limit prescribed u/s 40(b).
Conduct of ACIT10(1) Mumbai as well as CIT10 Mumbai is highly deplorable. Once the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner was transferred by the CIT10 Mumbai from ACIT10(1) Mumbai to DCIT Circle1(2) Pune by order dated 22.11.2011 it was totally improper on the part of ACIT10(1) Mumbai to request the CIT¬10, Mumbai to pass a corrigendum order with a view to circumvent the jurisdictional issue.
Appellant had sought higher deduction of tax at source by annexing TDS certificates and not reflecting the income as shown in the TDS certificates in its return of income. The Tribunal on consideration of all facts had come to the conclusion that remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer would not serve any purpose, as the appellant had consciously claimed credit of tax deduction on the basis of the TDS certificates and even enclosed the same along with the return of income, but failed to show it, as a part of the income.
Usually financial year of a company consists of 12 months. However, in some cases it may not be so. In case of newly incorporated company, financial statements have to be prepared from the date of incorporation of the company till the year-end date of the financial year which may not be of 12 months. Similarly in case of subsequent change of financial year by the company, the financial year in the year of such change may not necessarily be of 12 months.
In the instant case the powers of the CIT[A] are not questioned but what has been questioned is the powers of the AO in framing a de novo assessment , when the original assessment is set aside laying down the boundaries for framing the set aside assessment .
The expression ‘sufficient cause’ may be required to be construed liberally, provided adequate and proper reasons exist. Liberal approach is advocated in condoning the delay and not being liberal to sufficiency of the cause where it does not exist.
