hese are the three appeals filed by the revenue for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2009-10. The assessee has filed cross objections in all these appeals making it a bunch of six appeals. All these six appeals involved common grounds pertaining to the respondent and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
Shaan Construction P Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT noted that whole exercise carried out by the assessee is simply a devise to introduce unaccounted money through various shell companies in the form of share capital at a premium. The manner of issue of the shares through these companies, the manner of providing confirmation on […]
This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income-tax Act is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-35 Mumbai dated 4th September 2012, which in turn arises from assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 26 December 2008 for assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal
We find that the additions made by the assessing officer are beyond the scope of section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because no incriminating material or evidence had been found during the course of search so as to doubt the transactions.
It is settled law that when parties entered into family arrangement, validity of the family arrangement is not to be judged with reference to whether the parties should raised dispute or rights or claimed rights or a certain properties had in law any such right or not.
Show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
Deduction u/s 10A is to be allowed from total income as computed under chapter IV of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not at the stage of computation of total income under chapter VI of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore from this it is clear that while claiming deduction u/s 10A unabsorbed depreciation is not to be adjusted.
The CIT(A) is directed to first address the claim of the assessee namely that the online platform itself was not permitting the assessee to register as a legal heir in order to e-file the appeal, thus the assessee cannot be penalized for non compliances which are a result of limitations of the platform provided.
In both the appeals, the controversy relates to the nature and treatment of amounts received by the assesses from warehousing activity. As per the assesses the receipts from the warehousing activities are liable to be treated as business income whereas as per the Assessing Officer the same are liable to be treated as income from house property.
Conclusion: Notional interest on delay in realization of trade debt could not be charged from AE as there was uniformity in the act of the assessee in not charging interest from both AE and Non-AE debtors for delayed realization of export proceeds.
