Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that interest income earned from nationalized banks shall be treated as business income for which deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act can be claimed.
Pankaj Dutta Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Issuance and service of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, assessment framed would be invalid and such irregularity cannot be treated as curable under section 292BB. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:- This […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata bench recently ordered that the penalty u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for the delayed deduction of TDS amount.
The fact that the assessee had given his personal property as collateral security for enabling M/s. Palsons Drugs Pvt. Ltd to obtain loan and other credit facilities is not in dispute. Under the circumstances the proposition of law as laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs CIT’ (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case.
CIT(A) has been given power u/s. 251 of the Act to confirm the order of AO reduce, enhance or annul assessment order under the provision of Act but there is no power available to Ld. CIT(A) to give direction to AO for reopening the case of other years.
Tribunal was not justified in holding that the failure to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of the assessment did not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise such an order.
Cash in hand referred to in Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act represents only the personal cash of the assessee emanating from his personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplated the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset.
Income declared cannot be called retraced if same was included in 2nd revised return but not in Original and First Revise Return further Sec. 271AAA(2) not mandates offering of undisclosed income in return of income.
Merely for the reason that the assessee had admitted additional income in the course of search for taxation, it cannot be said that such admitted income was undisclosed income within the meaning of ‘undisclosed income’ provided in Explanation to section 271AAA of the Act to impose the penalty.
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of learned Commissioner (A)-9, Kolkata dated 24-11-2015 for assessment year 2006-07.
