This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 03-09-2011 passed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 21-12-2010 and is filed on the following grounds
ACIT v. Shrey Sharma Guleri (ITAT Mumbai) The argument of the learned D.R. is that the basement in the house cannot be termed as a residential house within the provisions of section 54 of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. It was pleaded that basement is part and parcel of the residential unit, therefore, it cannot be termed as a separate unit.
In accordance with the view expressed by the third member, Hon’ble Vice-President, Hyderabad, the ground of appeal No.4 is partly allowed and the AO is directed to allow the deduction from the book profit of sum of Rs.22.89 crores while computing the taxable income u/s 115GB of the I.T. Act. The ground of appeal No.4 is therefore, treated as allowed.
As there was no incriminating material found during search, no addition could be made because on the date of search no regular assessment was pending.
Excess expenditure in earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years and such adjustment would be application of income for subsequent years and therefore, AO was directed to allow the claim of assessee.
Section 13 comes into play at the time of granting exemption under section 11 and not at the time of granting registration under section 12AA, therefore, CIT was not justified in denying registration on the ground that assessee trust had not got its account audited and not filed its return of income for preceding years.
In this case Since the rice mill owned by the assessee was let out to another rice mill and the rental income was received without carrying on any business activity or rendering any services incidental to carrying on the rice mill, therefore, the AO rightly assessed the income under the head ‘Income from other sources’.
Flipkart India (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Where the assessee sold goods at loss in order to create market for itself, AO disregarded the loss without any basis and converted the same into income then action of AO was not justified. What can be taxed is only income that accrues or arises as laid […]
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied where AO was not sure about the charge on which penalty was to be levied since he had initiated penalty proceedings for both the charges, i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income, and also levied the penalty on both the charges vide his penalty order.
If no tax is deductible under section 195(1), section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act will not come in the way of the appellant claiming such deduction from its income: Barclays Bank Plc case
