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.
Appeal of the revenue stands allowed and only the cost of theland has to be considered for calculating exemption u/s 54B no other expenses will be taken into account. So ITAT disallowed the expenses of leveling and filing of land and set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore that of A.O on this issue.
Permission/denial by the RBI to register an assessee as NBFC does not decide the issue of carrying of business or make the business illegal. We hold that the interest income earned by the assessee has to be taxed under the head business income and all the expenses related with it have to be allowed.
Once the registration u/s 12AA granted to trust and the activities of the trust are genuine and as per object of the trust, CIT or any other authority empowered in this behalf cannot cancel registration on ground of involvement of trust in any activity other than charitable purpose.
