Where assessee did not have any exempt income during the year and investments being held by it were in the nature of Strategic Investments, no disallowance under section 14A could be made.
Completed assessments can be interfered with by AO while making assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material found during the course of search. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds of the same, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
Challenging the order,dated 18/12/2015,of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,a builder and developer,filed its return of income on 25/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.6.29 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 23/12/2011,determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7.40 crores.
otwithstanding the fact that the TPO determined nil ALP of royalty payment and franchisee fee, the amount paid as R&D Cess on these payments has to be allowed as deduction since it is a statutory payment to the Government.
Since in the present case also the assessee had taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole family, therefore, following the decision cited [supra], we hold that penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act in the instant case is not justified.
The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed ‘on money’. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 2, Kolkata dated 30.01.2017 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the disallowance of Rs. 3 6,92,842/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(a) on account of peripheral development expenses.
At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground no 1 raised in the appeal of the assessee. It is also noted that ground no 4 raised by the assessee in this appeal in general which does not call for specific adjudication.
Because on due consideration of facts, circumstances of the case more particularly in view of the fact that transactions in currency derivatives made by the assessee which were all supported by time-stamped contract notes conducted at the floor of recognized stock exchange resulting into loss of Rs. 1,709,121, learned ‘CIT (Appeals) has erred in law holding the same as speculative transactions and thereby not allowing set off of same against other business income of the assessee
