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
In ACIT Vs. M/s. Nokia Siemens Networks (P) Ltd, the Delhi ITAT held that assessee cannot be treated as Assessee- in- Default for Late payment of TDS due to system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end.
The facts about the Bank Accounts and other circumstances are in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee and non co-operation leads to derailment of It is the duty of every assessee to duly respond to statutory notices failing which the law provides imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- each default. In this case, assesse’s non- compliance of statutory notice is for more than 3 times in each A. Y.
Assessee was a non-employee director and share holder in the company and no salary or director’s fees was paid to her by the company during the year under consideration.
Amount of TDS was debited from the bank account of the assessee on the due date i.e. 7.10.2009 and the delay in deposit of such tax by a day was on account of system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end, which were beyond the control of the assessee.
Assessing Officer to examine from the original bank documentations/ agreements/ sanction letter and to ascertain whether the requirement of non-payment of commission to the guarantors was incorporated in the terms and conditions of bank for sanctioning of credit limit or whether any undertaking to this effect was taken from the company or not in terms of RBI guidelines noted above.
