Sub-clause (i) of section 54 providing for the exemption does not require that the whole payment for purchase of new asset should be made. In other words even if an assessee acquires a new house on credit i.e. the payment for which may be made in future, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of deduction under section 54 because what is required by sub-clause (i) is that cost of new house should be equal to or more than the amount of long-term capital gain.
So long as compensation has been directed to be paid, albeit under Section 357(3), Section 431, Section 70 IPC and Section 421(1) proviso would make it clear that by a legal fiction, even though a default sentence has been suffered, yet, compensation would be recoverable in the manner provided under Section 421(1).
Now the issue before us arises so as to whether the labourers are the employees of assessee or they are working in contractual capacity attracting the provisions of TDS.
It cannot be denied that a bogus person should not be accepted as a surety. A person who is offering surety must have acceptable residential proof. He may be a tenant, licensee. A beggar can also stand as surety provided he should have some acceptable residential proof.
A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the section 271J of the Income Tax Act inserted vide Finance Act 2017. Madras High Court has admitted the plea and issued notice to Finance Ministry.Section 271J of Income Tax imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Chartered Accountants for each wrong certification or report.
CIT (Appeals) was not correct in law that the assessee will be liable to deduct the TDS if the amount of a single contract exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. The contract has to be looked into party-wise not on the basis of the individual GR. In our opinion, all the payments made to a truck owner throughout the year are to be aggregated to ascertain the applicability of the TDS provision
The labour sardars are employed/deployed by the labour union to collect the money in bulk and distribute the same amongst the labourers, who are ultimate beneficiaries and not the labour sardars i.e in question. These labour sardars are remunerated by the union only for the job done. The collected money distributed amongst the labours/ labourers by the labour sardars on behalf of assessee and as such deducting of TDS from the said payment amount does not arise at all.
Appellant/Assessee is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of clinker and cement falling under Chapter heading 25 of the CE Tariff Act, 1985. Between 16th July, 1997 and 30th September, 1999, the Appellant received ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service’ from various services providers.
Section 254 does not indicate that Tribunal can recall entire order and pass a fresh decision and power to rectify a mistake under section 254(2) could not be used for recalling entire order.
The assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence to establish his claims that the deposits in the ICICI Bank, saving bank account at Khar (W), Mumbai was out of receipts connected with his business transactions
