The reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 R 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. Accordingly, The notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer
These are the appeals filed by revenue against which assessee also filed cross-objection relevant to three AYs. In these cases ITAT examined various issues and held that capital gain on transfer of land held as stock-in-trade can be made only in the year in which stock-in-trade was sold and not in year in which agreement was made.
In the assessment proceedings, the Assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) that an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- received on surrender of transferable development rights (TDR) from the builder through the co-operative society was wrongly declared as income from capital gains as the same was exempt in the hands of the Assessee.
The Tribunal, in assessment year 2006-07, in the assessee’s own case and on identical facts/ circumstances, has given a clear finding that the fee received by the assessee for providing marketing and liasioning services cannot be equated with the advisory services given to an investment manager.
There is no right of appeal provided under the statute against the order passed u/s. 264 of the Act. In fact a party to litigation can move to an appropriate forum only when the statute provides for such a right. As can be noticed from section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) u/s. 264 of the Act is not appealable before the Appellate Tribunal.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.) has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.) has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify.
Assessee association was established with the main object of improving public transport system in the country and its objects as per memorandum of association clearly reveals that the objects of the assessee association are dedicated towards improving road safety standards
Author in this articles discusses recent decision of ITAT – Ahmedabad holding that: 1. an eligible assessee cannot be declined the Treaty protection under section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on the ground that the said assessee has not been able to furnish a Tax Residency Certificate [TRC] in the prescribed form as required by the section 90(4).
No interest under the provisions of section 234A, 234B or 234C or penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 or section 271A or section 271B shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income determined in the block assessments
The assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
