In the instant case, the assessee has proved beyond doubt that the default by him in not paying the self-assessment tax is not wilful and it was beyond his control as there was no sufficient money available with him to pay the self-assessment tax especially when the income is mainly from short term and long term capital gain.
Whether CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the fact that the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring the assets has already been claimed as application of income u/s. 11 of the I. T. Act 1961 in the current / past years.
ITAT Mumbai held that the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO was not based on any scientific or logical basis. It is a fact that the books of the assessee are audited and no discrepancy was pointed out by the AO about the accounts maintained by him. Cash vouchers were supported by the documentary evidences
The assessee firm is a builder and developer and is assessed in the status of AOP. During the year under consideration, the assessee was developing a residential project which involved construction of 182 flats. The assessee did not disclose any income out of these projects on the plea that it was following ‘project completion method’ and offered income on these in AY 2010-11
ITAT had given a finding that the services provided to AE, Singapore cannot be equated with the kind of services provided to AE, Germany. Thus by following the order passed by the Tribunal in the hands of the assessee for AY 2006-07, we uphold the order of ld. DRP on this issue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by department is dismissed.
On facts, the Tribunal had clearly stated that the assessee had been in fact supplied the verbatim copy of the reasons, reproducing the same at paragraph 2 (page 2) of its order. The tribunal’s findings appear at paragraph 2.8 of the impugned order.
Brief Facts:Assessee, an individual,proprietor of M/s. Hydro Pure System,is engaged in the business of installation,erection and servicing of water purifying systems.He is deriving income from business and other sources. He filed his return of income on 28.9.10,declaring total income of Rs.18.40 lacs .
In the assessment proceedings, the Assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) that an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- received on surrender of transferable development rights (TDR) from the builder through the co-operative society was wrongly declared as income from capital gains as the same was exempt in the hands of the Assessee.
The Tribunal, in assessment year 2006-07, in the assessee’s own case and on identical facts/ circumstances, has given a clear finding that the fee received by the assessee for providing marketing and liasioning services cannot be equated with the advisory services given to an investment manager.
There is no right of appeal provided under the statute against the order passed u/s. 264 of the Act. In fact a party to litigation can move to an appropriate forum only when the statute provides for such a right. As can be noticed from section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) u/s. 264 of the Act is not appealable before the Appellate Tribunal.
