This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Durgapur [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 08/CIT(A)/DGP/2015-16 dated 31.08.2016 against the order passed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Dgp [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act
If the parties to the agreement are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned therein and the Revenue cannot interpret the said agreement in its own way to include the other costs: Coca-Cola India Inc. case
Briefly the facts of the case are that no PAN and ITR has been filed in this case. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR Information regarding cash deposits in S.B. account by assessee without quoting PAN numbers in the A.Y. under appeal.
We find that this addition has solely been made on the basis of a statement obtained from the secretary of the assessee. There is no corroborative material whatsoever. A mere statement by the secretary cannot be said to be a conclusive proof of undisclosed income earned.
Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. (ITAT Delhi) 1. The undisputed facts are that in the original return of income filed by the assessee for the instant years, the income representing the deposits in the bank account with Natwest Bank, London was not declared by the assessee. It is also undisputed that the said […]
The assessee has filed this appeal disputing the order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-15, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 22.03.2017 by which the Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 with a direction to re-do the assessment in respect of issue therein.
Where assessee registered under section 12AA had given advances to unregistered trusts, then it could be held guilty for violation of provisions of section 13 and consequently be denied exemption under section 11, if it was established that the president of the recipient trusts was having substantial interest in such trusts.
Rajesh Singhvi and Sons (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Claim of the assessee for exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act, on alleged long term capital gains arising on sale of shares of M/s.Cresanda Commercial Solutions Ltd and M/s. Surabhi Chem & Investment Ltd were disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer considering these to be penny stock companies […]
Though capital gain utilized towards purchase of new asset before furnishing of return of income either under section 139(1) or belatedly under section 139(4) would be deemed to be sufficient compliance of section 54B(2), therefore, denial of the deduction under section 54B towards purchase of agricultural land after the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) was unjustified and liable to be set aside.
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders dated 27/9/20 16 u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & order dated 28/9/20 16 u/s 80 G(5) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh.
