A. Ramalingam Vs Income Tax officer (ITAT Chennai) The exemption claimed by the assessee under CBDT circular is only for seizure of gold jewellery during the course of search operation. As rightly submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative, it does not absolve the assessee from explaining the source for acquisition of such jewellery. Therefore, the […]
The said interest income had been earned by the assessee out of business compulsions of deposits in the ‘Debit Service Reserve Account’, hence the said interest income is linked to the business activities of the assessee. The issue is covered with the decisions of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Hence, the interest income of the assessee is ordered to be assessed as Business Income.
Where the assessee failed to specify manner in which undisclosed income was derived and also failed to deposit due taxes then the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions specified under section 271AAA(2) and hence, immunity from penalty was not available to assessee.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of plain and studded Gold and Silver jewellery. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,83,03,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited expenses under the head Foreign Agency Commission amounting to Rs.62,12,609/-.
The conditions for invoking the principle of mutuality have been recently enumerated by the Apex Court in Bangalore Club’s case (supra) wherein after considering various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court on the subject, it has been laid down that principle of mutuality relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself.
Where notice was not issued by assessing officer under section 143(2) before passing order under section 143(3) read with section 147, assessment made by him was bad in law. Provisions of section 292BB are not applicable where there is failure to issue notice under section 143(2).
The appellant, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30-6-2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-V, New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that
Deferral of depreciation allowance does not result into any concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held while setting aside the penalty imposed on eminent lawyer Harish Salve for alleged concealment of income as it said his tax payments running into crores show his intention to be tax compliant.
In the present case also the income returned by the assessee under section 153A of the Act has been accepted by the assessing officer and once the assessing officer accepts the revised return filed under section 153A of the Act, the original return under section 139 of the Act abates and becomes non-est. Therefore, in […]
While calculating annual rental value for Income from House Property, expenses like brokerage, electricity expenses, legal expenses and bank charges would not be allowed as permissible expenditures as these expenses are not covered under sections 23 and 24 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as permissible expenditure. Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:- […]
