With regard to the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of agricultural income, the only aspect that clinches the nature of the agricultural income is whether agricultural operations were carried out or not. Once it was established that such agricultural activities were carried out by the assessee, assessee was entitled for exemption in respect of such agricultural income under section 10(1) of the Act, irrespective of any violation of the statutory provisions as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the instant case. Such infraction of the statutory provisions may expose the assessee to the risks of being penalized or punished under the relevant statutes, but the same do not change nature of the agricultural income, and as such, cannot be fatal to the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act.
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in its monetary policy, during 2012-13 has announced not to permit banks to levy foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalties on home loan on a floating interest rate basis.
In the instant case, in order to examine the entitlement of the assessee for exemption under section 54, it is to be seen whether the assessee had constructed residential house within three years of the transfer of his property. For doing so, the meaning of the term ‘house’ is to be explored. The term ‘house’ has not been given any statutory definition and, thus, has to be assigned meaning as understood in common parlance. As per dictionary, it means abode, a dwelling place or building for human habitation. A building, in order to be habitable by a human being, is ordinarily required to have minimum facilities of washroom, kitchen, electricity, sewerage, etc.
Employees’ Provident Funds (Second Amendment) Scheme, 2012 – Amendment in paragraphs 27, 27A, 27AA, 36, 36A, 38, 42, 43, 72, 82 and 83- This Scheme may be called the Employees’ Provident Funds (Second Amendment) Scheme, 2012.
Union Budget 2012 proposes that, with effect from tax year 2011-12, every resident individual who has an asset outside India has to file the tax return mandatorily irrespective of income. In other words, income is not the only criteria to file an income tax return in India.
From July 1, government may impose penalty of Rs 10,000 and Rs 1,00,000 for inaccurate TDS returns and also for corrective filings after proposed amendments in the Finance Bill is cleared
Thus, Vodafone cannot say that it had received no communication from the tax department, about the chargeability of the transaction to tax in India. Further, it chose to ignore the advice, received before the conclusion of the transaction, that Vodafone or HTIL should approach the Assessing Officer under sections 195/197 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for determining the exact tax liability in India.
Assessing Officer has disallowed the interest of Rs. 72,83,21,913/- on the ground of borrowed funds were used by the assessee for making investment in shares. The contention of the assessee is that in the earlier Assessment Year 2006-07 where no dividend income was received by the assessee, the Tribunal has held that no disallowance of expenditure can be made u/s. 14A of the Act and therefore, the disallowance made in the year under appeal may also be deleted as in this year also the assessee has not received any dividend income on the shares,
As per the assessee, since it had received a benefit of enduring nature, the outgo was on capital account and it had acquired an asset by making such payment. There cannot be any quarrel on this argument. The assessee had derived an interest in the property since leasehold interest is a valuable right. But, the question here is not whether the outgo was capital or revenue, the question is whether the upfront fee paid will fall within the definition of ‘rent’ as given under Explanation to section 194-I. It is pertinent to note that section 194-I does not make any differentiation between capital outgo and revenue outgo.
In the instant case, the assessee had claimed set off and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to be made against the profits and gains of the business of the succeeding year. The said claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer as the return of income in the assessment year was filed late by the assessee and provisions of section 139(3) were invoked and applied.
