P&H HC held that guarantee commission by itself does not bring into existence any asset of an enduring nature. Therefore, guarantee commission is allowable as revenue expenditure.
Sale consideration received by the assessee is entitled to benefit under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, even though the transaction for purchase of new property was not completed and possession was also not handed over to the assessee within 2 years.
Utilization of capital gains in construction /Purchase of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of section 54 of the Act irrespective of the fact that transaction not being complete in all respects.
Where assessee was precluded from construction of new house due to prohibition of construction in his area then assessee could seek relaxation in terms of section 119(2)(c) at time of claiming deduction under section 54F and such claim could be made only within time period, as prescribed under Act for making such claim.
In the case of Mega Cabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. dated 03.06.2016 , Honorable Delhi High Court has Declared Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, as amended, to the extent that it authorises the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG […]
Delhi High Court in the case of Agya Ram vs. CIT held that there is difference between lease income and license income and when the deed of agreement specifically worded that income will be license income for assessee’s factory premises given on rent then the treatment made by the assessee of considering the same as business income to be prevailed over the general view of the AO that assessee is earning rental income assessable as Income from House Property.
ITAT, Bangalore held that, in the instant case, since consultant doctors were paid fixed remuneration and the working conditions were under supervision and control of the hospital authorities, services were rendered by the doctors, in the nature of employee. Hence, payments were subject to TDS under section 192 of the Act.
Rajnikant D. Shroff Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the assessee is a member of a society owning a building. The society has entered into an agreement with a developer for development of a new building after demolishing the old building. As per the terms of the agreement, the developer has to provide a flat along […]
ITAT Mumbai held that when the department has not disputed the sales transactions disclosed by the supplier in its books who is an income tax assessee then it cannot assume the same as bogus purchases made by the buyer more so when the transaction has been supported by proper documentary evidences and payments are made to suppliers through proper banking channels.
Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act; and If the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6), no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act.
