Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30th December 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)– 53, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 2,57,246, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 2011-12.
DCIT Vs Adsun Offshore Diving Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Given facts of the present case that whatever test may be applied in deciding whether any expenditure is allowable as a deduction under section 37, the essential requirement must in every case be as to whether the expenditure was either in reality or as a […]
Under sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the accounts of the assessee and only when he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income,
Amount received by the assessee on account of subletting the property is only income from house property and has to be treated as such. In such circumstances there is no justification of allowing expenses against the house property income other than that provided as deduction under the scheme of computation of house property income.
This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 971/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2011-12 has come up for hearing today i.e. 23-02.2017 whereby ld. Counsel Shri Hiten Chande,CA on behalf of the assessee and Mrs. Malathi Sridharan, CIT DR on behalf of the Revenue were present. The Assessing officer was also present during the course of hearing.
ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely on the basis of assessee’s dealing with parties who were found out to be hawala dealers by the sales tax department.
In this case the bonus was determined after finalisation of accounts in the month of September 2009. The same related to income for the period ended 31st March 2009. The company which is the employer of the assessee did not deduct TDS of the said income till filing of income tax return by the assessee.
ITAT held that holding period should be computed from the date of issue of allotment If we do so, the holding period becomes more than 36 months and consequently, the property sold by the assessee would be long term capital asset in the hands of the assessee and the gain on sale of the same would be taxable in the hands of the assessee as Long Term Capital Gain
As per AS-7 when the cost of contract is likely to be exceed the contract revenue then the loss incurred on the contract should be recognized as revenue expenditure immediately.
In terms of section 153A of the Act, the already finalised assessment can only be disturbed if the search team has found some incriminating documents or material and which was relied upon by the AO at the time of framing the assessment or the addition is made in the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act by referring to seized material and not otherwise
