These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 29th December 2015 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. Both of these appeals are being disposed of, as a matter of convenience, by this consolidated order.
Salary to the partner is being regulated by the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act. It is to be paid in accordance with the provision stipulated in the deed which should be in commensurate with the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act. On such salary payment, provisions of section 40 A(2) cannot be invoked.
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 10th Jul 2012, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10.
Bogus penny stock capital gains: Claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of presumption and surmises in respect of penny stock by disregarding the direct evidences on record relating to the sale/purchase transactions in shares supported by broker’s contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular banking channels and the demat account.
Section 251(2) provides that the Commissioner (Appeal) shall not embark on enhancement of an assessment unless the assessee has been granted a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such We find no reference to the issuance of enhancement notice in the appellate order of the CIT(A).
It is a fairly settled law that forfeiture of share application money which has been duly received by the appellant in terms of prospect and credited to capital reserve account was a capital receipt.
Revenue is believed to prove that the activities undertaken by the alleged company are not meeting commercial prudence and the working of this company is merely to provide accommodation entries.
It is correct that the terms of partnership provided payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent on capital of partners as well as remuneration to the working partners. The assesses, however, did not make payment thereof to the partners nor made any provision of liability in the books of account
There is hardly any dispute about the settled law that quantum and penalty proceedings are altogether different and each and every disallowance/addition made in the course of former proceedings does not ipso facto attract the latter penal action as per hon’ble apex decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC).
AO bound to demonstrate that the assessee has failed to disclose material facts fully and truly which has resulted in escapement of income. If he fails to demonstrate this aspect, then, in the case where scrutiny assessment has been made and four years have expired, he cannot take action under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
