Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of plain and studded Gold and Silver jewellery. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,83,03,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited expenses under the head Foreign Agency Commission amounting to Rs.62,12,609/-.
The conditions for invoking the principle of mutuality have been recently enumerated by the Apex Court in Bangalore Club’s case (supra) wherein after considering various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court on the subject, it has been laid down that principle of mutuality relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself.
Where notice was not issued by assessing officer under section 143(2) before passing order under section 143(3) read with section 147, assessment made by him was bad in law. Provisions of section 292BB are not applicable where there is failure to issue notice under section 143(2).
The appellant, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30-6-2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-V, New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that
Deferral of depreciation allowance does not result into any concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held while setting aside the penalty imposed on eminent lawyer Harish Salve for alleged concealment of income as it said his tax payments running into crores show his intention to be tax compliant.
In the present case also the income returned by the assessee under section 153A of the Act has been accepted by the assessing officer and once the assessing officer accepts the revised return filed under section 153A of the Act, the original return under section 139 of the Act abates and becomes non-est. Therefore, in […]
While calculating annual rental value for Income from House Property, expenses like brokerage, electricity expenses, legal expenses and bank charges would not be allowed as permissible expenditures as these expenses are not covered under sections 23 and 24 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as permissible expenditure. Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:- […]
The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of growing and manufacturing and selling of tea. The assessee’ s tea estate is located at Harishnagar Tea Estate, P.O.Harishnagar via Bhishalgarh Vill.Gokul Nagar District Sepahijala, Tripura West – 799102. During the previous year a portion of the assessee’s tea plantation comprising of land together with tea gardens thereon was acquired
There is also no finding that the assessee has misused or not used the donations for any other purpose than the purpose for which they have been given i.e., for educational purpose. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the exemption under section 11 of the Act cannot be denied in toto to the assessee with regard to the voluntary donations received by the assessee.
In a significant ruling delivered on Friday, a division bench of the ITAT Bengaluru held that the benefit of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be extended to the cost incurred by the assessee on alteration / renovation on the purchased unit.
