1. Delhi HC to take call on Pizza Hut tax exemption  (Click for detail)

2. Economy may have bottomed out; showing tentative signs of revival  (Click for detail)

3. ICAI study group to submit report on Indian economy  (Click for detail)

4. Installment under reverse mortgage scheme to be tax free: National Housing Bank  (Click for detail)

5. Sebi seeks tax incentives for REITs  (Click for detail)

6. Banks advised to tighten letters of credit sanction norms  (Click for detail)
   

1.  DCIT Vs. Shri Arvinder Singh Soin, ITA No. 738/Del/2013 Date of Decision: 20.09.2013, Income Tax Apellate Tribunal - Delhi

Whether the ld.CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of advance received from patients since, the assessee has failed to provide proper justification or necessary documentary evidences in spite of several opportunities given by the A.O.

Held: No

It is evident that the amount received during the year under consideration is only advance and the same is adjustable against the consultancy charges which would be payable by the patient after 12 months of the deposit as per the rate prescribed in the scheme. Admittedly, subsequently, as and when consultation has been taken by the patients, the income accrued in those years has been accounted for and offered as income. Thus, as per the scheme, the advance received by the assessee during the year under consideration cannot be treated as professional fees of the assessee Unless the services are offered the said advances cannot change the nature from ‘advance’ to that of the ‘receipt’. Hence, the Hon’ble tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  ITO Vs. Mrs. Anvita Abbi,, ITA No. 3707/Del/2011 Date of Decision: 20.09.2013, Income Tax Apellate Tribunal – Delhi

Whether when the Assessing Officer is not allowed a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut the said evidences produced by the assessee, violation of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T.Rules 1962.”

Held: Yes

The learned CIT(A) admitted the fresh evidences but did not allow any opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examining those evidences or furnishing any evidence in rebuttal as required by subrule (3) of Rule 46A.

The Hon’ble tribunal held that the order of learned CIT(A) is in violation of Rule 46A and  orders of authorities is set aside and the matter is restore to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is directed to produce all the evidences before the Assessing Officer.

(Please click here for judgment)