Assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act are invalid as no panchnamas were drawn in the names of 22 petitioners. Another aspect of the said contention relating to validity of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act has been also raised.
Contribution to be made to the provident fund must be the proportionate amount of salary paid to the employees. Salary was a fixed monthly payment whereas the commission was not a fixed payment and could not be included within the scope and ambit of the term salary .
Bonus cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of the expression salary as defined in Clause (h) of Rule 2. Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 4 contain a clear indication that the expression salary takes in only periodical payments made by the employer to the employee during a year by way of remuneration.
Being a resident of Korea, appellant is governed by the Income-tax Laws applicable to the class of assessees as that of the appellant as prevalent in Korea. Therefore, it has a tax identity in Korea. In addition thereto, appellant has submitted to the jurisdiction of Indian Taxing Authorities by furnishing return of income and, thereby, acknowledged that it has also a tax identity in India.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed credit for TDS of Rs.1,73,52,062/- for the AY 2006-07 and Rs.2,25,09,037/- in AY 2007- 08 which was not allowed by the AO on the ground that the income in respect of the said TDS was not shown by the assessee in view of the provisions
Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the instant case, the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act for all the years which were disallowed by the AO on the ground that as per provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act the computation of deduction has to be done by setting off of brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business against their respective eligible incomes.
The Bombay high court in the case of Niranjani Roshan Rao V/S. Roshan Mark Pinto, in Family Court Appeal No. 124 of 2013 has held that a Hindu married to a non-Hindu in accordance with Hindu rituals cannot seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
It was held that loan taken from the relatives cannot be compared with bank loan because loan from the relatives are without security, while loan from the bank is secured. Tribunal has held in the case of Omkarmal Gaurishanker –Vs- ITO reported in 92 TTJ (Ahd.) 223 that interest paid to relatives @24% is reasonable.
Payments were made to truck drivers, who insisted for payment in cash was not exceptional case, because the assessee has not made payments to individual truck owners but to various brokers through whom the trucks were engaged, and therefore, the case of the assessee was not covered by the exceptions mentioned in Rule 6DD.
CIT(A) found force in the submission of the assessee that the interest at the rate of 12% was also taken as reasonable in the Income Tax Act under the provisions of section 40A(b)(iv) for the purpose of calculating interest to the partners. The CIT(A) also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Raj Steel Industries and Vipul Y. Mehta Vs. ACIT (supra) where the rate of interest at 18% to 24% was considered to be reasonable.
