otwithstanding the fact that the TPO determined nil ALP of royalty payment and franchisee fee, the amount paid as R&D Cess on these payments has to be allowed as deduction since it is a statutory payment to the Government.
Petitioners had ceased to be the Directors of the Company, as stated by them, on 8thApril, 2011 and that they could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.
Since in the present case also the assessee had taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole family, therefore, following the decision cited [supra], we hold that penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act in the instant case is not justified.
The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed ‘on money’. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 2, Kolkata dated 30.01.2017 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the disallowance of Rs. 3 6,92,842/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(a) on account of peripheral development expenses.
At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground no 1 raised in the appeal of the assessee. It is also noted that ground no 4 raised by the assessee in this appeal in general which does not call for specific adjudication.
Because on due consideration of facts, circumstances of the case more particularly in view of the fact that transactions in currency derivatives made by the assessee which were all supported by time-stamped contract notes conducted at the floor of recognized stock exchange resulting into loss of Rs. 1,709,121, learned ‘CIT (Appeals) has erred in law holding the same as speculative transactions and thereby not allowing set off of same against other business income of the assessee
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Durgapur dated 31-3-2015 for assessment year 2010-11 in respect of upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,01,031 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The instant appeal has been filed before us by the assessee against the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-16, Kolkata under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Kolkata for the assessment year 2006-07 with the following grounds
CIT Vs M/s. L & T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) In none of these orders there is any whisper of the alleged particulars of income which has been concealed or what particulars of income which have been filed is inaccurate. Mere using the words that there has concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate […]
