Question Nos. 2 to 6 pertain to one and the same issue, that is, whether IVP is a capital asset or not. It is seat from the orders of the Tribunal that investment in IVP is assessed in the case of the assessee as unexplained investment only to the extent of fresh investment made in the respective year and reinvestment after encashment of earlier deposits was in tact allowed.
The first question pertains to disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction on salary paid to doctors, staff and depreciation for car, furniture, etc. in the determination of professional income of the assessee. The assessee’s grievance is that the Tribunal rejected the claim for the reason that the claim was made for the first time before the Tribunal and the assessee never raised the issue in assessment before the officer or in first appeal before the first appellate authority.
The making and sale of advertising materials for customers in the form of banner or hoarding or film-slide, etc. is `advertisement’ as defined under section 65(2); all commercial concerns engaged in any of the activities connected with advertisement, which includes making, preparing, displaying or exhibition of advertisement, answer the description of `advertising agency’.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT vs. Shri. C. Najeeb regarding penalty on income determined under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. Discover key questions of law, such as whether the Tribunal’s decision to levy income tax on 15% of total receipts is correct. Dive into the intricacies of assessment and penalty proceedings, including insights on undisclosed income, civil liability, and the interpretation of Section 158BFA. Uncover the court’s findings, providing clarity on the computation of undisclosed income and the imposition of penalties in this significant tax case.
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the surrender will not be well-founded.
The appellants are the Additional Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (the revenue); and the respondent, Ponkunnam Traders, a firm, is the assessee. The judgment under appeal is reported as Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, [1972] 83 ITR 508 (Ker). Since the question involved is fairly simple,
