//
archives

income tax act 1961

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Gift under income tax – credit-worthiness of the donor = We find that it is not in dispute that the aforesaid two amounts have been deposited by the two partners in their capital account. The partners are income tax payee. They have explained the source as having received gift from various persons, who have also filed their Income Tax Returns and have been assessed accordingly. Merely because, the donors are weavers and they own only one loom would not make any difference. They have filed their Income Tax Returns and have also filed the return under the Gift Tax Act. They have paid the gift tax also. Assessment under the Gift Tax Act has also been made, though the assessments made were summary in nature. In the case of Anil Rice Mills (supra), this Court has held that the assessee can not be asked to prove the source of source or the origin of origin. Taking the various facts enumerated above, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the amount deposited by the two partners is liable to be added under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the gifts received by the respective partners from the various persons could not be explained as the credit-worthiness of the donors had not been established. The Tribunal had wrongly drawn an adverse inference upon the fact that the donors had filed their Income Tax Return for the Assessment Years 1988-89 to 1991-92 on a single day and further the return for the Gift Tax was filed on 25.08.1992, which was well within the due date. The appellant has explained the nature and source of the deposit and has discharged its burden. The order of the Tribunal on this ground therefore can not be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.

reported/published in  http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD  Reserved Income Tax Appeal No. 71 of 2002 M/s. Zafa Ahmad & Company Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi *********************** Hon’ble R.K. Agrawal, J. Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J. (Delivered by R.K. Agrawal, J.) The present appeal has been filed under section 260A of the … Continue reading

“(j) Whether the Full Bench of the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the finding of the earlier Division Bench that on a correct interpretation of the Proviso to clause (vii) of Section 36(1) and clause (v) to Section 36(2) is only to deny the deduction to the extent of bad debts written off in the books with respect to which provision was made under clause (viia) of the Income Tax Act? (k) Whether the Full Bench was correct in reversing the findings of the earlier Division Bench that if the bad debt written off relate to debt other than for which the provision is made under clause (viia), such debts will fall squarely within the main part of clause (vii) which is entitled to be deduction and in respect of that part of the debt with reference to which a provision is made under clause (viia), the proviso will operate to limit the deduction to the extent of the difference between that part of debt written off in the previous year and the = we hold that the provisions of Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. The bad debts written off in debts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), will be covered under the main part of Section 36(1)(vii), while the proviso will operate in cases under clause (viia) to limit deduction to the extent of difference between the debt or part thereof written off in the previous year and credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under clause (viia). The proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) will relate to cases covered under Section 36(1)(viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while under Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee would be entitled to general deduction upon an account having become bad debt and being written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C IVIL APPEAL NO. 1143 OF 2011 Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. … Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur … Respondent WITH C IVIL APPEAL NO. 1147 of 2011 CIVL APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1155 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. … Continue reading

NEW CONCEPT OF JOINT PROPERTY NOT KNOW TO OTHER PARTS OF INDIA EXCEPT GOA=Portuguese Civil Code. – (1) Where the husband and wife are governed by the system of community of property (known under the Portugese Civil Code of 1860 as “COMMUNIAO DOS BENS”) in force in the State of Goa and in the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, = the system `Communiao Dos Bens’ i.e. community of property

NEW CONCEPT OF JOINT PROPERTY NOT KNOWN OT OTHER PARTS OF INDIA EXCEPT TO STATE OF GOA. =               TO AVOID DOWRY DEATHS AND DOWRY HARASSMENT , THIS CONCEPT OF LAW IS TO BE APPLIED FOR THE REST OF INDIA money affairs of husband and wife governed by the … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,076 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com