The facts of the present case are similar only in the case in I.T.A. No.350/Del/.2009 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi Bench ‘D’ has dealt with the similar issue which was at ground No.3 of the appeal. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and had remitted back file to the office of Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of assessee u/s 80IB. While deciding the matter, the Hon’ble Tribunal had considered various judicial pronouncements in which it was held that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. If an assessee under a mistake, misconception or not being properly instructed is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes are collected.
For compliance of TDS provisions knowing correct name for a given PAN is vital. The ‘ABCAUS- Know name from PAN utility’ considerably shorten the process for knowing a name from PAN.
Assessee, on partition of the joint family, had received the balance capital of the family in the real estate business comprising various assets, which were in the nature of stock-in-trade and it cannot be considered that the various assets or properties received by the assessee on partition are capital assets and these capital assets were converted into stock-in-trade of the real estate when the assessee continued to carry on the business of the erstwhile joint family.
The assessee is solely responsible for executing the contract with the persons to whom he has given forklift vehicles on hire and it was only for fulfilment of this contract that he has also engaged the forklift vehicles from the outside parties. In case of hiring from outside parties the responsibility and the risk involved for performing the contract work lay with the assessee only and no such risk and responsibility seems to have been transferred to outside parties vis-à-vis his principals.
In the instant case, the claim of the CIT is that the assessee is the owner of house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalroe and therefore, the said decision is not squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In our considered view, if the house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalore are owned by the assessee’s wife then the same cannot be considered as owned by the assessee for disallowing exemption u/s 54F of the Act.
Without any motive it is quite unnatural that any individual would extend the monetary benefit to any person in this day to day world. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajeev Tandon v. ACIT (supra) has observed that in such circumstances the taxation authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances.
The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 28th May, 2012 and is hereby published for general information. In the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Act), in section 2, in clause (10), after the words “to be a customs airport”, the words, brackets and letters “and includes a place appointed under clause (aa) of that section to be an air freight station” shall be inserted. (52 of 1962.)
Assessee here, in our opinion, did fall within the concept of rendering a formal education and could not be equated with a coaching institute. We are, therefore, of the opinion that assessee could not have been denied the eligible exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for a reason that it was not doing charitable activity as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act.
. An existing CS firm desirous to convert itself into LLP shall be required to follow the provisions of Chapter-X of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 read with Second Schedule to the said Act containing provisions of conversion from existing firms into Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) as well as provisions of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980.
The operation theatre and surgical are highly technical equipments for the operation of the persons. Therefore, they cannot be maintained in a routine or normal manner, but a technical person is required for maintenance of such equipments. Similar is the case with RO system, CT scan machine, MRI machine, lift and sterlisation and medical equipments. Therefore, these contracts cannot be the contracts in a routine or normal manner but for which technical service has been rendered and provisions of section 194J, read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) are attracted.
