Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of plain and studded Gold and Silver jewellery. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,83,03,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited expenses under the head Foreign Agency Commission amounting to Rs.62,12,609/-.
The appellant, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30-6-2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-V, New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that
Deferral of depreciation allowance does not result into any concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held while setting aside the penalty imposed on eminent lawyer Harish Salve for alleged concealment of income as it said his tax payments running into crores show his intention to be tax compliant.
In the present case also the income returned by the assessee under section 153A of the Act has been accepted by the assessing officer and once the assessing officer accepts the revised return filed under section 153A of the Act, the original return under section 139 of the Act abates and becomes non-est. Therefore, in […]
Assessee is an association of professional and businessman to protect and promote the interest of its members. The income of the assessee is from membership fees from its members, specialized services, services and facilities, meetings, seminars and training programmes, sale of publication etc. It is also noted that the income of the assessee from other […]
These three appeals of the Revenue and two cross objection of the assessee, are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi (in short the ‘CIT-(A)’]. In assessment years 2006-07, the assessee has not filed cross objection against the appeal of the Revenue, however, in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the […]
Since the difference is reconciled at the penalty stage and claim of assessee have not been doubted or rejected, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the levy of penalty merely because assessee conceded for addition of the amount in question.
Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in securities and shares. In the year under consideration the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 29,82,952/- on the sale of Mutual Fund which was held as stock in trade and as such claimed as business loss. The issue in this case is whether the amount of Rs 29,82,952/- on account of loss on sale of mutual funds can be treated as capital loss as held by the AO as against business loss shown by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that the loss has been incurred during the normal course of the business.
Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order is passed and not from the date of ‘date of receipt of the served/ received are not interchangeable and the Legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraselogy depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expression passed cannot be stretched to mean that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order.
In view of the undisputed fact that a sum of Rs. 18,63,61,346/- was offered to tax though it was originally debited to the profit and loss account during the AY 2011-12,and because of the cost reimbursement agreement between the assessee and the parent entity on 18.05.2012 pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 13,21,53,000/- and Rs. 5,44,13,490/- was credited to the profit and loss account
