On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) as erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,04,50,0001- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the credit in the books of the assessee as unexplained shown as receipt of share application money.
The AO has imposed the penalty on the ground of disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation. The assessee cannot be fastened with the law of penalty without there being a clear specific charge. Fixing a charge should not be in a casual manner and it has not been permitted under the law.
Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But,the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares.In our opinion,it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular system, especially the Act allows to choose one of the two methods.
The common issue in these appeals is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition on account of alleged notional annual letting value of unsold flats held as stock in trade.
These are the three appeals filed by the assessee against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 05/09/2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty U/s 271(1)(c),
Assessee company further contended to treat the receipts of income from the let out of Terrace Antenna and Hall as Business Income and allow the expenditure against the same. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and taxed the income received from terrace antenna and hall booking under the head Income from Other Sources.
That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of 77,845/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income on allegation of unexplained cash, solely on the basis of statement of the appellant recorded during the course of survey u/s. 133A of the Act, without considering and appreciating the explanation with evidences offered by the appellant.
ITO Vs Pritendra C. Jhaveri (ITAT Mumbai) Since the expression ‘held by the assessee’ is not defined under section 48, the same has to be understood as defined under Explanation 1(i)(b) to section 2(42A) which provides that in determining the period for which an asset is held by assessee under a gift or will the […]
Heddle Knowledge (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai) The fact that the amended Sec. 140A(3) w.e.f. 01.04.1989 does not envisage any penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the impugned penalty by making recourse to Sec. 221(1) of the Act. Before parting, we may again emphasize […]
Ashok Kumar Dutta Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Notice u/s 274 read with section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word maintained and retained has been used in section 271A of the Act .If assesseee fails to maintain or fails to retain such books of accounts and other documents . The Income tax authority […]
