These four appeals are preferred by the revenue against the four separate orders passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) all dated 27th July, 2016 for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and since a common issue involved therein, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order.
This is an appeal by the Assessee directed against the order dated 22.12.2016 of the ld. CIT, Exemptions (ld. CIT(E)), Kolkata relating to A.Y.2016-17, wherein the ld. CIT(E) has passed an order rejecting grant of the approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (here nafter referred to as the Act).
Minda SM Technocast Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 1. In the present case, the assessee has acquired shares of TEPL at Rs.5 per shares. The shares were acquired by the assessee from three companies as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The assessee claimed to have valued the shares of TEPL as per the provisions […]
Addition u/s 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of tax on payments of commission to non-resident/foreign commission agents ignoring the facts that commission paid foreign commission agents is deemed to accrue or arise in India, which required deduction of tax as per section 195 of the I.T.Act..
Shri Ghanshyam Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) In present case, the ld. Additional CIT granted the approval by observing merely that he was satisfied. Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act, it is trite, are charter to the Revenue to reopen completed assessments. Section 151 of the Act provides a safe-guard that the sword of […]
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata, (hereinafter the Ld. CIT(A)), dt. 22/09/2017, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), relating to Assessment Year 2012-13
The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer holding that gift made by the assessee towards relinquishing 50% interest in the flat No. 52 at Ajanta Apartment, Colaba, Mumbai is a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.
ITO Vs Upkar Retail (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] CTR (SC) 177 : [1972] 88 ITR 192 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle that “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are […]
As assessee received salary in cash, his claim that investments were made from such salary could not be brushed aside and keeping in view the overall facts and capacity of the assessee, addition under section 69 was deleted.
Where revenue itself failed to enquire from assessee as regards the manner in which undisclosed income admitted under section 132(4) was derived, the assessee could not be held guilty of not substantiating the manner of deriving of such undisclosed income, therefore, no penalty under section 271AAA could be levied.
