Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of tobacco products. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for assessment year 2007-08 on 31-10-2007 declaring total income of Rs. 15,20,628.
A. Ramalingam Vs Income Tax officer (ITAT Chennai) The exemption claimed by the assessee under CBDT circular is only for seizure of gold jewellery during the course of search operation. As rightly submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative, it does not absolve the assessee from explaining the source for acquisition of such jewellery. Therefore, the […]
The said interest income had been earned by the assessee out of business compulsions of deposits in the ‘Debit Service Reserve Account’, hence the said interest income is linked to the business activities of the assessee. The issue is covered with the decisions of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Hence, the interest income of the assessee is ordered to be assessed as Business Income.
The purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, the seized documents had to be shown to belong to the other person and not merely pertaining to such other person. The change brought about in this regard in Section 153 C of the Act by way of amendment has been given prospective effect from 1st June 2015.
Where the assessee failed to specify manner in which undisclosed income was derived and also failed to deposit due taxes then the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions specified under section 271AAA(2) and hence, immunity from penalty was not available to assessee.
If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the on money received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the ‘on money’ which can be considered for the purpose of taxation.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of plain and studded Gold and Silver jewellery. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,83,03,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited expenses under the head Foreign Agency Commission amounting to Rs.62,12,609/-.
The conditions for invoking the principle of mutuality have been recently enumerated by the Apex Court in Bangalore Club’s case (supra) wherein after considering various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court on the subject, it has been laid down that principle of mutuality relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself.
Where notice was not issued by assessing officer under section 143(2) before passing order under section 143(3) read with section 147, assessment made by him was bad in law. Provisions of section 292BB are not applicable where there is failure to issue notice under section 143(2).
The appellant, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30-6-2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-V, New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that
