On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) as erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,04,50,0001- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the credit in the books of the assessee as unexplained shown as receipt of share application money.
The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the validity of Communication No.GS 41 GOB 2018 dated 16th May, 2018, addressed by the Governor of Karnataka to Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (respondent No.3 herein) inviting him to form the government and be sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka.
The AO has imposed the penalty on the ground of disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation. The assessee cannot be fastened with the law of penalty without there being a clear specific charge. Fixing a charge should not be in a casual manner and it has not been permitted under the law.
This appeal is filed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Years 1997-98 onwards, for a period of eight years, till 2004-05. On the filing of the Appeal, an objection was raised by the respondent/ assessee, represented by Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate, that the Appeal is filed beyond time.
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Senior Citizen of 82 years of age. This Petition, challenges the orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Shri Shyam Sunder Vs. Sohan Singh @ Shoban Singh (Delhi High Court) The Trial court has held that in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, no loan above Rs. 20,000/- could have been given in cash, so the loan transaction is not liable to be recognized. In so far as this is […]
Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But,the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares.In our opinion,it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular system, especially the Act allows to choose one of the two methods.
The reasons recorded do not indicate that the same has been issued on the basis of audit objection. Therefore as held by this Court in Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadkar 6, one cannot go behind the reasons recorded in support of the notice to infer that he has acted on the basis of audit objection.
The common issue in these appeals is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition on account of alleged notional annual letting value of unsold flats held as stock in trade.
CIT Vs ST. Joseph Convert Chandannagar Educational Society (Calcutta High Court) The Revenue seeks to question the propriety of an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal which has allowed donations to be made by the assessee charitable trust to another charitable trust. According to the Revenue, Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act, […]
