A partnership firm is a separate entity than that of its partners under the Income-tax Act and therefore, partners vis-à-vis partnership firm would stand on the same footing of shareholders vis-à-vis company; accordingly , income charged in the hands of partnership firm cannot be treated as being a non-exempt income in the hands of a partner of such firm and, therefore, provisions of section 14A would be applicable in computing the total income of such partner in respect of his share in the profits of such firm.
, A perusal of the provisions pf Section 142(2A) shows that at any stage of the proceedings before the A.O. if the A.O. is of the view that there is complexity in the accounts of the assessee, then, in the interest of justice, he may with the prior approval of the Chief Commission ^or the Commissioner
The rule of construction of a charging section is that before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section. No one can be taxed by implication. A charging section has to be construed strictly. If a person has not been brought within the ambit of the charging section by clear words, he cannot be taxed at all.
The Tribunal had to consider whether an assessee liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax u/s 115JA was also liable to pay interest u/ss 234B & 234C for short-fall in payment of advance tax. The Judicial Member followed the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd 313 ITR 170 and held that interest u/ss 234B and 234C could not be levied when book profits was computed u/s 115JA.
Insofar as Appeal No. 64/2009 is concerned relating to the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal rejecting the rectification application on the ground of limitation, even assuming, that it is a question of law, there is no error in the finding on the question of law also and therefore there is no way of keeping this appeal pending on the board of this Court for further examination, the order of the Tribunal is fully in consonance of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Hongo India (P) Ltd’s case (supra) the appeal inevitably has to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
The assessee, a share broker, purchased shares on behalf of its client and paid for them. The brokerage on the said transaction was offered to tax. As the client did not pay for the shares, the assessee wrote off the amount due and claimed the same as a bad debt u/s 36 (1) (vii). The AO rejected the claim on the ground that as the said “debt” had not “been taken into account in computing the income”,
The Commissioner is empowered to call for such further documents or information or calls such enquiries in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the institution. If the Commissioner is satisfied that the condition laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (5) of section 80G are fulfilled, he shall record such satisfaction and grant approval.
In fact, it is not disputed that the assessee company takes benefit of additional depreciation on account of revaluation of the fixed assets by increasing the revaluation reserve in the relevant assessment year 2000-2001 and consequently, the same definitely has the effect of reducing the net profit for the said Assessment Year.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the long term capital gain earned by the assessee is included in the net profit determined as per P&L account prepared as per Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. In other words, it is not the case of die assessee that the capital gain earned by the assessee was not included in the net profit determined as per P&L account of the assessee prepared under the Companies Act.
Even without going to all the strict interpretation, even otherwise on receipt of advance as per the agreement, if the assessee deposited the amount as required us 54EC. he cannot be treated as a defaulter for the same.
