This appeal as well as Cross Objection (CO) by the Revenue and assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata dated 01.12.2015. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-11, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITO Vs. M/s Borojalingh Tea Co. (ITAT Kolkata) The question before us arises so as to whether the assessee is entitled for claiming the interest expense against the interest income in the given facts and circumstances. It is undisputed fact that the loan was provided to the parties on interest and accordingly interest income was […]
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan dated 20.01.2016 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the disallowance of Rs.32,06,445/- and Rs.3,58,000/-
When the bank issues a bank guarantee on behalf of the assessee, all it does is to accept the commitment of making payment of a specified amount to the beneficiary on demand and it is in consideration of this commitment that the bank charges of fee which is termed as ‘bank guarantee commission’
DCIT Vs. Yash Raj Films (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In this case stand of assessee has been that assessee company had deducted TDS on the negative processing charges paid to Kodak India Ltd. as per the provisions of section 194J of the Act, as the negative processing involves specific tasks of editing, enhancement of quality […]
Where assessee could not furnish any explanation regarding source of receipt of money, except saying that it was loan borrowed from parties, the addition made by the AO under section 69 was justified.
Mattapalli Chalamayya Charitable Trust Visakhapatnam Vs CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) If the activities of the trust are genuine, at the stage of commencement of institution, registration has to be granted automatically and claim u/s 80G of the Act can be followed with grant of registration. Ld. Commissioner (Exemptions) did not reject the request of the assessee […]
In our view, the issue relating to the assessees claim of deduction under section 54F, is debatable in nature. Merely because the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, agreed for disallowance of its claim for deduction under section 54F, will not lead to a conclusion that the assessee has either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of his income. That being the case, in our view, it is not a fit cause for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Assumption of jurisdiction over assessee under section 153C on the basis of statement of searched person, however, seized documents making no reference of either the assessee or any transaction entered into by it, was highly misplaced and, therefore, set aside.
In the present case, the fact that the entire ‘undisclosed income’ was declared by the appellant in the statement recorded during search and the same was also disclosed in the return filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A, clearly goes to show the bona fides of the appellant, not warranting imposition of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act.
