This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Kolkata dated 28.08.2014. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Range-3, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide his order dated 11.01.2013 for assessment year 2007-08. The grounds raised by the Revenue per its appeal are as under
Depreciation on right to collect toll being infrastructure and not on toll road, where cost incurred for development and construction of infrastructure facility was a right in nature of intangible asset falling within purview of section 32(1)(ii). Order of AO in amortizing expenditure over period of facility and allowing the same was reversed. AO was, thus, directed to allow claim of assessee vis-a-vis depreciation on intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii).
If intention of Parliament was to include HUF prior to the said date then the amendment would have been carried out in respect of section 54B as well along with section 54. Therefore, amended provisions of section 54B were not applicable retrospectively and assessee-HUF was not entitled to exemption for the year under consideration.
USA is not a person or authority under the Indian Income Tax Act, subsidy or grant received from it does not attract Explanation 10 to section 43(1), extraction of coal from mines and processing thereof tantamounts to production
Where AO reopened the assessment, based on statements recorded and material impounded during survey, however, without establishing any whisper from the reasons recorded regarding the escapement of any income, such reassessment based on suspicion and surmises was set aside.
The assessing officer issued notice under section 148 for reassessment, during the pendency of assessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 which is bad in law and cannot be sustained
Where specific charge for the levy of penalty was not mentioned in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and there was vagueness in the recording of satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed.
In situations like this case, one may fall into realm of “preponderance of probability” where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. But the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected.
In this Question arose for consideration was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 could be levied in respect of an addition not having been made in quantum/assessment proceedings and it was held that Imposition of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is strictly circumscribed to addition which has been made/confirmed in the […]
DCIT Vs. Delta Constructions Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee contends that in order to invoke the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) it has to be shown that the payment made by the assessee is attracted by the provisions of section 194H of the Act i.e., there is liability to deduct tax at source on the bank guarantee […]
