The test to decide, as to whether the income is revenue in nature or capital receipt, is that if the funds borrowed are just surplus and by virtue of that circumstances they are invested in fixed deposits the income earned in the form of interest will be taxable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ [as per ratios of SC decision in 227 ITR 172].
It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the assessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment
Tribunal held that in order to impart justice to the employees/assesses the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the issue of Section 10(10)(C), the Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee holding that the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the amount of Rs.5 lacs
Assessing Officer has wrongly stated that Shri Prithvi Singh, father of the assessee has stated in his statement that he had no agricultural land in his name. Since, as per the Statement recorded by AO it is been observed that that Shri Prithvi Singh (father of the assessee) has stated that he has
D.R for the revenue argues that no appeal lies against Appeal Effect Order passed by Assessing officer. The appellant may apply to the Assessing Officer for rectification U/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but no appeal be filed against appeal effect order passed by AO.
The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.
Exchange rate fluctuation arises out of and is directly related to the sale transaction involving the export of goods of the industrial undertaking and, therefore, difference on account of exchange rate fluctuation is entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act. This ground of appeal is allowed.
In the case of Pooja Industries vs. ITO, ITAT Chandigarh held that mere denial of deduction u/s 80IC, which the assessee has claimed on roller flour mills with a bonafide belief, would not lead to panel consequences.
In the case of Radha Nutirents Ltd. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble ITAT held that the assesse has failed to provide the loan confirmation of the loan received from Shri Kathirase Kumar and was also unable to provide an explanation as to why such confirmation could not be filed.
The assessee was not satisfied as the assessing officer did not allow the depreciation which was subsequently claimed during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee in Cross Objection has challenged the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in upholding the disallowance of claim of Rs.2, 57, 90,420/- made by the trust in respect of excess utilization made in the earlier years.
