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.
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) – 19, Kolkata dated 05.03.2014 and in the solitary ground raised therein, the revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in cancelling the assessment made by the A.O. under section 143(3) / 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding the same to be invalid.
Aristo Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is not in dispute that the assessee had maintained separate books of accounts for trading activity and manufacturing activity. We find that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IE of the Act only in respect of profits derived from manufacturing activity only. It is not in dispute that […]
Provisions of section 2(22)(e) related to deemed dividend are not applicable where the relevant transactions are in the nature of current account transactions and not loans and advances.
It is clear from bare reading of section 143(1) that change of status as done by AO does not fall within any of the clauses thereof. Also, it could not be said that change of status of assessee fell within the meaning of expression ‘an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return’ as laid down in Explanation (a) to section 143(1). Accordingly, intimation issued under section 143(1) changing the status of assessee was not in accordance with law and AO was, therefore, directed to modify the intimation accepting the return of income as it was.
