Assessee to prove that it is covered by exceptions to chargeability to tax as is provided by provisions of Section 1 15BBC of 1961 Act, namely that the assessee maintained a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed or else it is a religious trust.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Visit Com Pvt Ltd (176 Taxman 164) held that in case of expenditure on website, there is no change in the fixed assets of the assessee and no asset has been created but it is a tool for facilitating the business of the assessee and therefore, held expenditure of website to be of revenue nature.
Value of the broken bottles need not be reduced from the written down value for the purpose of calculation of short term capital gains arising from sale of bottles.
While scrapping an order transferring a case from Delhi to Noida, the division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the holding of the office of a director by the petitioner and his admission to the undisclosed income are not sufficient grounds for transferring a case under section 127 of the Income Tax Act.
The Court finds that the standard excuse that the Department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is two-fold. The first is regarding the budgetary constraints of the Departmen
expenditure incurred for organizing sports events are allowable items of revenue expenditure as such events publicise the names of the sponsor.
High Court held that Considering the Office Memorandum F. No. 404/72/93- ITCC dated 29thFebruary 2016 as a whole, there is no such requirement of pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand either at the time of submitting stay application or before the stay application of the assessee is considered on merits.
Even though it is a debatable issue but as Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico (P) Ltd. (supra) had taken a view that it is capital expenditure which was subsequently followed by Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. V. CIT (supra) and the registered office of the respondent assessee being in the State of Gujarat, the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court was binding.
We are prima facie of the opinion that the activities of the assessee of Banquet Hall Hiring, Hospitality (Restaurants) and Permit Room (Bar) are in the nature of carrying on trade, commerce, or business for consideration, which are hit by proviso to Section 2(15) of 1961 Act.
If the assessee is able to establish that it was only a notional provision which was reversed afterwards, then no TDS liability can be imposed on the assessee.
