It is evident from the record that surrender was made during the course of survey by the assessee and furnished the return of income declaring additional income and paid the tax thereon. Nothing has been brought out on record by the Assessing Officer that the surrender was made when the assessee was cornered by the Assessing Officer.
Merely change in the flat without determining any consideration for the old flat cancelled and new flat transferred, it cannot be said that the old flat was sold and new flat was purchased on the date of change.
In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of account and whatever credit entries are found by the Assessing Officer, it was from the bank accounts of the assessee in which deposits were made at different point of time.
No professional has any right to invoke the judicial machinery for his own interest without any reasons. If he does so it would amount to professional misconduct on the part of the professional. Moreover, to dispute the proceedings of the court
Undisputedly the office of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment orders is located in Delhi, over which the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The order under section 127 of the Act was passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax on 12.8.2011 w.e.f. 23.8.2011, which was passed after passing the assessment order and even after filing of the first appeal.
Having been served with a legal notice for the levy of penalty u/s. 271B, it was incumbent on the assessee to cause to comply with the provision, at least for the second year and, in any case, seek legal opinion in its respect. Rather, it could have, on its own, requested the AO not levy the penalty for that year (i.e., A.Y. 2006-07), explaining that the non-audit of its accounts u/s. 44AB stood caused only due to its ignorance of law,
Accrual (or otherwise) of an income (or expenditure) is matter of fact, to be decided separately for each case, on the basis of the assessment of the obtaining facts and circumstances. The same cannot be stated as an accounting policy – which by its very nature is to be applied uniformly,
The learned CIT continued to observe that section 13(1)(b) of the Act provides that in the case of a trust or charitable institution created or established for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste, no income will be excluded from the total income. It was, further, observed by the learned CIT that provisions of section 11 and 12 cannot be extended to an institution established for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste.
In the instant case, the Judicial Member has not stated anywhere that the profit margin disclosed by the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer arbitrarily and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is excessive and arbitrary. The Assessing Officer has discretion to either reject the books of account and estimate gross profit or to consider the books and may make specific addition by considering as to whether the expenditure claimed is reasonable or not.
Since the housing project was completed after 31.3.2008, the assessee has not fulfilled the second requisite condition for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act and therefore the assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.
