The Kolkata bench of ITAT recently held that penalty cannot be levied since show cause notice issued in the present case under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
ACIT Vs M/s. Agri Gold (ITAT Visakhapatnam) During the assessment year, the assessee has received the interest of Rs. 7,43,76,762/- and offered it under the business income. The said practice of offering the interest income under the head business income was followed by the assessee for the last so many years, which was accepted by […]
ITO Vs. M/s Nupur Carpets Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the AO treated net ‘surplus’ as business income instead of capital gains on the ground that the assessee carried out business of share trading as evident from large volume of transactions and systematic, organized, repeated and regular activity in shares with a clear […]
DCIT Vs. M/s Fee grade & Company Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Punitive charges for overloading were actually in the nature of additional freight for transporting goods beyond the permissible carrying capacity which cannot be categorized as an expenditure incurred for any purpose which is an office or infringement of law. Following the aforesaid decision the CIT(A) […]
To support the family members, the money has been given by the assessee to his son/wife. This is simply a transfer of money from one family member to another family member to support day to day expenses, educational expenses and other family expenses
Where investment in a new residential house was made within three years from date of transfer of assets, exemption Under section 54F could not be denied on the ground that unutilized amount was not deposited in Capital Gains Account Scheme before due date prescribed under section 139(1).
Priyank Mittal Vs. ITO (ITAT Agra) A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO shows that the allegation as per the reasons to believe escapement of income is bogus purchase/sale of shares, while the impugned addition has been made with respect to gift, which shows that the A.O. had no specific information. Hence, as […]
Once the income of the assessee was estimated after rejection of books of account, then, the AO could not make disallowance on the same books of account for the purpose of disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) or general disallowance under section 37(1). Hence, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that mere entry in the books of accounts and classifying the said payment as capital, i.e., it has been capitalised in the books will not at all be determinative as it has to be seen on the facts whether such a payment or expenditure falls in the capital filed or revenue field.
Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently quashed the re-assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act since service of notice by affixture was done at a wrong address.
