Notice under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued in the name of a dead person. The said notice was duly received by the present petitioner as the legal heir of the dead person. Notice of assessment under Section 158BC of the Act was issued and in the assessment proceedings
Deduction u/s 54 of the Act is also available even if the land, which was appurtenant to the residential house, is sold and it is not necessary that the whole of the residential house should be sold because the legislature has used the words or which is distinctive in nature.
Admittedly, the petitioner has lodged a police complaint that her name has been misused in a document in respect of a property of which she is not the owner. Therefore, the matter requires further detail prob.
The assessee is a charitable trust and has challenged the confirmation of the order of the AO where he disallowed the accumulation of the 15% even when the income was allowed u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act. The AO observed that if the trust is not left with surplus and there is deficit, then there can be no accumulation made. He further stated that accumulation or setting apart of 15% of income has been allowed by virtue of provision of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, when assessee is unable to spend the entire amount and where the entire amount has been spent, there is no surplus left that can be accumulated.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court found that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot go beyond a remand order when such remand was based on a specific finding. The division bench comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Najmi Waziri was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s LI & FUNG India, against the Show Cause Notices issued by the Revenue.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing/modification of an order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the respondent No. 1/Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II under Section 142(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 14B of the eponymous Rules of 1962.
This writ petition in public interest has been brought forward highlighting the recent steps taken by the State Government by calling upon the police authorities to take appropriate steps of policing in order to prevent such crimes that outrage or insult the modesty of female citizens of this State.
Fact that a particular expense does result in a profit for the Assessee in the immediate proximity cannot form the basis of its dis allowance. In incurring an expense, a business person could have a short and a long term perspective.
It cannot be denied that expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of developing housing project and not allowable by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) would ultimately go to increase assessee’s profit from such business and profit as computed after making the dis allowance would, therefore, qualify for deduction under section 10A.
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee claim for its exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short BC the Act CC). Appeal has been filed with a delay of ten days. Condonation petition has been filed. Delay is condoned and appeal admitted.
