The assessee is a non-scheduled Co-operative Bank carrying on banking business in terms of a license issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and is thus governed by Circulars of RBI relating to Prudential Norms, Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning
Briefly stated facts are that the assessee claimed deduction for Rs.6,88,12,554/- and Rs.23,78,781/- being amount payable to EYGS LLP and Ernst & Young LLP, UK respectively towards reimbursement of costs for providing access to system & management audit methodology updates
In the case in hand, from the facts, it was clearly established that the assessee had put a wrongful claim of depreciation and thereby had furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of concealment of real income, hence, the penalty proceedings were correctly initiated by the AO.
The assessee is a Chartered Accountant carrying on his profession under the partnership firm M/s. Tiwari & Co. for and from the year 1983. The partnership firm M/s. Tiwari & Co. got dissolved w.e.f. 30.12.2006 and assessee became proprietor of this firm.
Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT has in the case of Shri G.N.Mohan Raju,v/s ITO in ITA No.242 & 243(Bang) 2013 has held that notice u/s 143(2) issued prior to filing of return in response to notice u/s 147 is invalid, even if return is filed late.
ITAT Chennai rules on exemption u/s.54/54F for residential property purchase; ‘due date’ clarified as extended under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench has in the case of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v/s DCIT in IT(SS)A No. 16/Hyd/2011 has held that Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would operate prospectively as it curtails the right of the assessee.
Assessee is a charitable society and is registered under section 12A of the Act. The question of applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act on transfer of capital asset in the case of a charitable society was examined by the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shri. Dwarikadhish Temple Trust, Kanpur in I.T.A. No. 256 & 257/LKW/2011, in which the Tribunal has held that where the entire sale consideration was invested in other capital asset, provisions of section 50C of the Act should not be invoked.
In sunbeam Auto case Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that though revision can be made in a case when there is lack of enquiry in the order, however, inadequate inquiries cannot be a basis of revision as it depends on the perception of the officer exercising assessment powers.
Admittedly, the undisputed fact is that the assessee in the case on hand, has not deducted tax at source on the payments made to Shri Uday Kumar Shetty amounting to Rs.1,53,78,795/-. As submitted by the ld.AR, as far as the payments made by the assessee to Shri Uday Kumar Shetty
