The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that since the reason on which the proceedings under section 147 ceased to exist, the assessing officer is not justified in making additions on other issues.
A disclosure made under the fear of a plausible penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary or made in good faith. Mere request for non-initiation of penalty on the ground of disclosure branding the same to be voluntary with a view to buy peace and avoid litigation will not take the assessee out of the scope and ambit of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Touching Heart Ministries Vs. ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case, the donations were received for specific purpose for acquiring the fixed assets. This is evidenced by the letters placed before us from the donors. The funds are not freely available to the assessee society, for utilizing its objectives other than acquiring specified assets. The […]
AO to treat the interest income temporarily parked in the banks and given as unsecured loan which yielded income and which has been offered to tax by the assessee should be treated as income from business and not from other sources.
M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs. JCIT (OSD) (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The assessee company has created a provision under the head ’Future Leave Encashment’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to explain how the amount debited towards the provision for future leave encashment can be allowed as deduction. In response to […]
Where assessee failed to deposit the unutilized sales consideration under Capital Gain Account Scheme within the period specified under section 139(1) or 139(4), AO was justified in restricting the claim of deduction to the expenditure incurred upto the due date of filing return of income.
A bare perusal of nature of services, prima facie, reveals that the said services were of general in nature which is usually provided by the landlord to the tenant. Therefore, amenity charges, in our opinion, being part and parcel of same transaction, were asses sable as Income from House Property.
In the instant case, the tax has not deducted the TDS due to wrong classification of the payments made which was included under the heading ‘purchases’ and the purchases do not attract the TDS, whereas the sub contract payments attract TDS.
Dis allowance on account of VAT not pad of Rs.1,78,334/- was made by the AO only because of erroneous auditor’s report and it has been brought to our notice how the error has occurred and we find that assessee’s contentions are backed by records, therefore, we being the final fact finding authority, find that it was the mistake of the auditor who has wrongly given the figures and made wrong observation because of which the AO made the dis allowance. However, the AO before making the dis allowance could have asked the assessee to explain before making the dis allowance.
Assessing Officer that the actual investment made in the new residential house is Rs. 20 lakh, but, he has also filed a revised computation of income on 20th November 2012, offering taxable long term capital gain at a higher figure of Rs. 24,98,488. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has accepted the income shown in the revised computation of income. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we are of the view that the explanation of the assessee to the effect that investment shown in new house at Rs. 25 lakh was due to a bonafide mistake is acceptable.
