The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Durgapur dated 31-3-2015 for assessment year 2010-11 in respect of upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,01,031 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The instant appeal has been filed before us by the assessee against the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-16, Kolkata under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Kolkata for the assessment year 2006-07 with the following grounds
Since the assessee’s profit and loss account showed only one item of expenditure which had been booked in the accounts and there was no exempt income earned by the assessee, the question of disallowance under section 14A did not arise.
M/s. Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs PR. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that CIT has invoked his power u/s.263 to examine the land development charges paid by the assessee to Smt. Sumitraben Chauhan. From the […]
When a Company issues FCCB, it incurs a liability to pay a larger amount than what is borrowed and such higher amount payable by the Company will be for the purpose of its business in order to generate funds for its business activities. The amounts so obtained are used by the Company for the purposes of its business. Hence the liability to pay the additional amount would therefore be revenue expenditure.
With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act , it is levied for deferment of payment of advance tax for the period of 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. In the instant case, since, the cash was seized after the expiry of the previous year i.e. after 31.03.2011, the assessee cannot claim non-chargeability of interest u/s 234C on that account. Hence, interest u/s 234C of the Act is leviable in this case.
Action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct and the AO erred in adopting the Indian bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australian currency and as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australian Dollar. Therefore, applying the ratio laid by the Hon’ble High Courts discussed above, we hold that there was no necessity of any arm’s length adjustment in this case
ITAT held that non-compete fee paid is an intangible asset acquired by the assessee on which depreciation has to be allowed u/s. 32(1)(ii) of the act.
DCIT Vs M/s. Ambuthirtha Power P. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) The issue in Maxopp Investment Ltd’s. case (supra) was whether the expenditure (including interest on borrowed funds) in respect of investment in shares of operating companies for acquiring and retaining a controlling interest therein was disallowable under Section 14A of the Act. In the said case […]
Treating the receipt of huge share application money by an investor-company as unexplained investment, merely due to the reason that low income was declared by such investor in its income-tax return, was not justified, since balance sheet of the investor produced by assessee had proved creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the investor.
