Where reassessment proceedings were initiated on the directions from JCIT or CIT and AO had not carried out any independent exercise to examine fresh material to come to a conclusion that the assessment warrants reopening on account of escapement of income, the reassessment was bad in law.
Government only intended to restrict the investment in a particular financial year and accordingly has fixed the limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as permissible limit in a particular financial year. The Government did not intend to restrict the maximum amount of exemption permissible under Section 54EC.
Assessee is an association of professional and businessman to protect and promote the interest of its members. The income of the assessee is from membership fees from its members, specialized services, services and facilities, meetings, seminars and training programmes, sale of publication etc. It is also noted that the income of the assessee from other […]
These are appeals by the assessee against two orders both dated 25-2-2016 of C.I.T. (Exemptions), Kolkata (i) passed under section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 withdrawing/cancelling the registration with effect from 1-4-2012
The learned AR argued the assessee was entitled to raise additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal, even though the claim had not been made either before Income-tax Officer/AO or the First Appellate Authority. It was further argued that the additional ground of appeal raised by assessee was purely legal in nature.
Bogus Purchases: If the AO has not disputed the genuineness of sales and the quantitative details and the day to day stock register maintained by the assessee, a trader, he cannot make an addition in respect of peak balance of the bogus purchases. He can only determine the element of profit embedded in the bogus purchases. On facts, the addition is restricted to 2% of the bogus purchase
These three appeals of the Revenue and two cross objection of the assessee, are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi (in short the ‘CIT-(A)’]. In assessment years 2006-07, the assessee has not filed cross objection against the appeal of the Revenue, however, in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the […]
This appeal by assessee u/s 253 of Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai dated 16.10.2012 for Assessment Year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal
Since the difference is reconciled at the penalty stage and claim of assessee have not been doubted or rejected, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the levy of penalty merely because assessee conceded for addition of the amount in question.
Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in securities and shares. In the year under consideration the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 29,82,952/- on the sale of Mutual Fund which was held as stock in trade and as such claimed as business loss. The issue in this case is whether the amount of Rs 29,82,952/- on account of loss on sale of mutual funds can be treated as capital loss as held by the AO as against business loss shown by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that the loss has been incurred during the normal course of the business.
