Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the impugned orders and given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions.Section 2 (15)of the Act defines charitable purpose and Section 11 (1)of the Act provides exemption to the income derived by the trust applied for the charitable purposes
We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding rate of deduction of tax at source in respect of job work assigned by the assessee to others as an event manager. There is no dispute that the assessee had not deducted tax at source. The dispute is only whether the case of the assessee will be covered u
We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. The crux of the matter under consideration whether under the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration there is transfer of asset and same is liable to capital gains or loss. The case of the revenue is that the assessee was not the owner of the plot therefore there was no transfer
It is first contended on behalf of the assessee that the view taken by the CIT that section 80IB(2) also applies to assessee’s claiming deduction under sub-section (10) of the section in respect of housing projects is erroneous and untenable as has been held by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in (a) Parth Corpn. v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 368 and (b) Shreejee Ratna Corpn. v. ITO
Now coming to the merits of the case, we noticed that the AO levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) on the ground that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. What is inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act has been discussed in details by the 1TAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Mimosa Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record. Admittedly tax was deducted at source and payment was made/deposited within the time provided under the Act and the returns under Form 26Q as well as 24Q were filed with a marginal delay, reckoned from the due date for filing the regular returns as per the old provisions of the Act. It is
Whether on a true and correct appreciation of the relationship between the assessee and its distributors, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the payments paid by the assessee is not commission as envisaged under Section 194H of the Act?” This question has arisen for determination for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05
This appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal .s order dated 28.07.2006 passed in ITA No. 491/Del/2000 and relates to the assessment year 1998-1999.
The object of Section 80IA was to provide an impetus to the growth of infrastructure in the nation. A sound infrastructure is a sine qua non for economic development. Absence of infrastructure poses significant barriers to growth and development. A model which relied exclusively on the provision of basic infrastructure by the State was found to be deficient.
The principal challenge in these proceedings is to the notices issued by the first respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing to assess the income of the petitioner for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 on the ground that there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, within the meaning of section 147.
