Where revenue itself failed to enquire from assessee as regards the manner in which undisclosed income admitted under section 132(4) was derived, the assessee could not be held guilty of not substantiating the manner of deriving of such undisclosed income, therefore, no penalty under section 271AAA could be levied.
Where assessee having received share capital furnished evidences, i.e. addresses, PAN No., copies of returns and bank statements of subscribers, etc., AO was not justified in treating share application money as unexplained without rebutting such evidences.
Assessee clearly failed to specify as to how she derived undisclosed income and under what head it fell in (rent, capital gains, professional or business income out of money lending source of the income, etc. Unless such facts were mentioned with some specificity, it could not be said that conditions in section 271AAA(2) were satisfied by the assessee.
Central Information Commission instructs University of Delhi to allow inspection of his own answer sheet to the Appellant Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta as sought in the RTI application within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Whether the reinvestment made by the assessee in 3 residential houses having common amenities, kitchen, common entrance, common house name, common electrical, common storage, common water, common garden, common boundary wall, common guard room, etc would give eligibility to claim exemption u/s 54 of the Act by construing all the three units as a single residential house ?
Where the income of the assessee was exempt under section 11 and the assessee was not carried on the business, section 40(a)(ia) had no application. Moreover, the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 11 by the Finance Act, 2018 making inter alia the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) applicable in case of charitable or religious trust or institution with effect from 1st April, 2019 further shows that section 40(a)(ia) hitherto was not applicable in computing income of entities registration u/s 12A of the Act.
The Registry has put a note that the applications are time barred by five days. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the settled legal position of law, the applications cannot be treated as time barred. He in this respect has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), which read as under:-
A.O. noted that the deduction under section 80IC is to be allowed on the profits derived from eligible business. The interest earned on the FDRs cannot be said that interest income earned from manufacturing activities of the assessee. It can only be said that interest income on FDRs is attributable to business activities but cannot be said that it derived from manufacturing activity of the assessee.
Commission earned by non-resident for services rendered abroad could not be construed as incomes accrued or arisen in India and accordingly disallowance made by AO by invoking section 40(a)(i) was set aside.
M/s Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Agra) In the case at hand, the challenge of the assessee is that since in the reasons recorded, the AO has not spelt out as to what he did with the information received by him from the Investigation Wing, the reasons are hit by the vice of non-application […]
