This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 18, Kolkata dated 15.04.2016 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of penalty charges paid to Insurance Regularly and Development Authority (IRDA).
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 2, Kolkata dated 30.01.2017 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the disallowance of Rs. 3 6,92,842/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(a) on account of peripheral development expenses.
At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground no 1 raised in the appeal of the assessee. It is also noted that ground no 4 raised by the assessee in this appeal in general which does not call for specific adjudication.
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Durgapur dated 31-3-2015 for assessment year 2010-11 in respect of upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,01,031 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The instant appeal has been filed before us by the assessee against the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-16, Kolkata under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Kolkata for the assessment year 2006-07 with the following grounds
With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act , it is levied for deferment of payment of advance tax for the period of 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. In the instant case, since, the cash was seized after the expiry of the previous year i.e. after 31.03.2011, the assessee cannot claim non-chargeability of interest u/s 234C on that account. Hence, interest u/s 234C of the Act is leviable in this case.
Action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct and the AO erred in adopting the Indian bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australian currency and as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australian Dollar. Therefore, applying the ratio laid by the Hon’ble High Courts discussed above, we hold that there was no necessity of any arm’s length adjustment in this case
This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Durgapur [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 08/CIT(A)/DGP/2015-16 dated 31.08.2016 against the order passed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Dgp [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act
The assessee has filed this appeal disputing the order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-15, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 22.03.2017 by which the Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 with a direction to re-do the assessment in respect of issue therein.
Where assessee registered under section 12AA had given advances to unregistered trusts, then it could be held guilty for violation of provisions of section 13 and consequently be denied exemption under section 11, if it was established that the president of the recipient trusts was having substantial interest in such trusts.
