Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Central, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT) dated 18/08/2015 by which the learned CESTAT has dismissed the rectification application on the ground that the said application has been preferred beyond the date of six months from the date of passing the original order, appellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal.
CIT (Appeals) in a detailed judgement, reversed the order of the Assessing Officer holding that if at all the transaction was held to be sham, the additions can be made in the case of the firm and not the partners.
The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to correct the error in mentioning the Permanent Account Number (PAN for short) of one of the agencies to whom the petitioner had made multiple payments during the relevant financial period for which deduction of tax at source was necessary.
Appellant contended that section 43D of the Act itself recognises recognition of taxability of such interest and that when a specific provision in the nature of section 43D of the Act has been made, and entities like the assessee are excluded from the purview thereof, the assessee cannot indirectly claim benefit which would amount to […]
This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) dated 26.9.2001. Appeal was admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law.
This Tax Appeal is filed challenging the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.08.2006. The Tax Appeal has been taken up for consideration of following substantial questions of law: [A] “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of […]
It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment for A.Y 2008-2009 is sought to be reopen beyond the period of six years, solely on the directions issued by the learned CIT [A], which has been subsequently set-aside by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that otherwise, the re-assessment proceedings beyond six years is not permissible.
The Department further initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on ground that the assessee failed to offer explanation for making such a claim. It was noted that once the claim was rejected the onus was on the assessee to dislodge the revertible presumption of the claim of concealment of income. However, the tribunal deleted penalty by holding that merely because the claim is not accepted would not give rise to penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a legal claim in a transparent manner. Whether such a claim is acceptable or not, is altogether a different matter, it said.
The issue is one, namely, whether the assessee was entitled to claim benefit of section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 with respect to Government grant of Rs. 8.97 crores received during the assessment year in question.
When its book profit was nil on the last date of the financial year then the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax and therefore, interest u/s 234B and section 234C of the Act will not be charged
