In exercise of the powers conferred by section 252 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Central Government has constituted the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals against the orders passed by various authorities stated in section 253 of the Act.
CIRCULAR NO. 4/2013-Income Tax The deductor, issuing the Part A of Form No. 16 by downloading it from the TRACES Portal, shall, before issuing to the deductee authenticate the correctness of contents mentioned therein and verify the same either by using manual signature or by using digital signature in accordance with sub-rule (6) of Rule 31.
The genesis of this book is an exercise carried out to compile best quality assessment orders passed in each Chief C.I.T region of Gujarat during the Financial Year 2011-12. On analyzing these orders it emerged that majority of additions were relatable to issues pertaining to 19 topics. Therefore it was decided to constitute an expert […]
No Change in the Schedule of The Chartered Accountants Examinations – May 2013 Students appearing for Intermediate (Integrated Professional Competence) Examination may note that, owing to the Bye Elections to Ward 43 – Nangloi East and Ward 256 Yamuna Vihar of North Delhi & East Delhi Municipal Corporations of Delhi on 5th May 2013, there […]
Assessing Officer has observed that in response to show-cause notice issued to the assessee specifying the defects noticed in M/s. Agrawal Enterprises, the assessee has simply escaped by saying that it is not their mistake if the seller did not show the cash sales in their books of account. It was further observed by the Assessing Officer that on verification of the copies of account furnished by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed to have made cash purchase from M/s. Agrawal Enterprises during the period October 22, 2004 to December 31, 2005 however, verification of the contra confirmation filed by M/s. Agrawal Enterprises, it was noticed that they had not shown such cash in their account.
Assessing Officer having examined the nature of receipts and the corresponding expenditure in the original assessment, now cannot be permitted to change his view with respect to the nature of treatment such receipts must receive.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the
Tribunal referred to a book titled Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs by P. Narayanan wherein it was stated in paragraph No. 17.02 that a cinematograph film depicting live events like sporting events, horse race, etc. cannot infringe any copyright because there is no copyright in live events. The Tribunal held that there is thus no copyrights in the live events and depicting the same cannot infringe any copyright.
During the course of assessment proceedings the Income Tax Officer has raised certain queries with regard to deductions, which were replied by the assessee and the in the assessment order in paragraph no.4.1 the Assessing Officer has dealt with the question of grant of deduction and has allowed deductions. In our opinion, the reasons given for reopening the assessment and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is nothing, but a change of opinion. It is not the case of escape assessment as nothing was concealed by the assessee nor he has failed to furnish the material relevant to the assessment year before the Assessing Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, notice issued under section 148 of the Act deserves to be quashed.
From the documents on record, it can be seen that part of the penalty was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). However, with respect to the rest, the same was deleted. The Tribunal concurred with such view of CIT (Appeals). Several additions were struck down in the assessment proceeding itself and were sent for reconsideration. With respect to disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, the authorities held that the claim cannot be stated to be a wrong claim. Relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, such penalty was deleted.
