The Supreme Court has upheld that order of the Bombay High Court and held that parking spaces cannot be sold by the builder. They are a part of the common areas and the cost of that land has to be charged to all the flat-owners in proportion to their carpet area.
When a partner receives her/his share in the assets of the partnership firm or when he receives anything in excess of her/his share in the assets of the partnership firm and even in a case a partner receives a share of profit either in case of retirement or in case of dissolution, the same cannot be brought to tax
If banking facilities are not available at the place where land is purchased no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Unsubstantiated material found in pen drive cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make additions
The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 that ‘file containing loose sheets of papers are not books’ and hence entries therein are not admissible u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Deletion of addition under section 68 for unexplained credits without examining creditworthiness of the persons or genuineness of the transactions for the mere fact that credit were made through Banking channels not justified.
The brief facts of the case are that the AO observed from the return of income filed by the assesee that the assessee’ s income included income from salary from Price Water House of which he was a partner. Since income by way of salary or remuneration from a firm was to be assessed
Financial position of the assessee is very sound as agreed even by its ld. Counsel and any further recovery of the outstanding demand on account of penalty is not going to cause any genuine hardship to the assessee. At the same time, government also needs liquid funds to manage its day to day affairs. Having regard to all these facts & circumstances, we are of the view that the stay of outstanding demand for both the years can justifiably be granted subject to a further payment of Rs.50,00,000/-by the assessee against the penalty imposed for each of the two years under consideration.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has not been given proper opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2007. He submitted that the query in this regard came from the Assessing Officer on 20.12.2007.
The short issue in this appeal is whether or not penalty under section 44AB will also be attracted in the case in which the professional income of the assessee received from partnership firm of Chartered Accountants is taxable under the head “income from business or profession
In this matter, the Hon ’ble Gujarat High Court has held that prima facie it is of the view that penalty u/s 45 (3A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is not mandatory. However, in the opinion of the court, the question as to whether once the authority decides to impose penalty
