A careful consideration of the assessment order would reveal that AO while holding that assessee is liable for deduction of tax at source under the provisions of sec. 1941 of the Act has mainly rested his case on the ground that is the rent as defined in explanation u/s 1941 and the assessee has paid rent in respect of buses utilized by him being in the nature of plant.
Whether Ld.CIT(A) is correct in denying additional claims on the ground that claims were not made by way of filing the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee did neither claim those additional claims in the Original/Revised return nor claimed before Assessing Officer but were claimed first time before the ld.CIT(A)?
Provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) do not provide for absolute disallowance as in the case of say, sec. 40A(3) of the Act. The amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in one year can be claimed as deduction in the year in which the TDS provisions are complied with.
Where, the assessee, apart from furnishing the permanent account number of the creditor, has also furnished their balance sheet, copy of income tax return, confirmation, bank account etc. The amount advanced to the assessee is duly disclosed in the balance sheet of all the creditors.
That mere incorporation and receipt of share application money cannot be said to be commencement of the business. Neither any interest income has been earned from against advances nor any goods or services been obtained.
Capital gain arising of long term capital asset, if invested in specified asset, the assessee is not to be charged capital gains and exemption provided under Section 54EC of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on account of the fact that deeming fiction is created under Section 50 of the Act.
The principal issue involved is taxability or otherwise of sums received by the assessee, a residential housing co-operative society, by way of transfer fee and TDR premium.
Issue – Disallowance of Rs 52,07,883, in respect of leather testing charges paid to TUV Product Und Umwelt GmbH – a tax resident of Germany, under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge his tax withholding obligations in respect of the same.
It is not in dispute that Mrs. Shyamala Vijai and Mrs. Poornima Shivaram were entitled to half share each over the property that was sold to the appellant. In fact, as we have already seen, the sale deed clearly acknowledges the receipt of sale consideration of Rs.1 .20 crore by both the vendors
The appellant is a doctor, surgeon specializing in liver transplant. It is a fact that the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting on a regular basis. The appellant has received life time consultancy fees which is accounted as advance from patients as per the principles of mercantile system of accounting.
