Commission observed that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
The addition has been made invoking the deeming provisions of section 50c of the Act. There is no finding that the actual sale consideration is more than that mentioned in the sale agreement.
Admittedly, the contributions of the assessees to the Provident Fund are not a recognized Fund, the same are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80C (2) (vi) of the I.T. Act.
We note that GP rate on the accounted sales estimated by the assessee himself stands at 07.29%. We thus fail to understand as to how the GP for the unaccounted sale should be so lower at 03.56% which is less than half of the GP rate declared by the assessee himself on accounted sales.
All the appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respect of writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has set aside the impugned assessment orders so far as they relate to Privilege Fee as being taxable income.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for quashment of the recovery and auction proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent UCO Bank (the Bank henceforth); for quashing the appellate order dated 9-11-2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad
A bare reading of the sub-section (5) of Section 22 would show that it is only after an assessment is complete under sub-section (4) of Section 22, that penalty can be imposed by the Assessing Officer. However, it can, either be imposed at the time when, the assessment order is passed, or, by way of a separate order, albeit, after the assessment order is passed. Therefore, the proposal in the show cause notice to levy penalty at the rate of 150% prior to adjudication demonstrates premeditation.
This is an appeal preferred against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.09.2016. 2. By virtue of the said judgement, the learned Single Judge disposed of a batch of writ petitions, which included, the writ petition filed by the appellant, before us.
Deficit incurred by a trust could not be treated in the same way as that of a loss sustained by an assessee under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession‘ for such deficit to be furnished in a return and verified. The same was to be allowed to be set off against surplus […]
In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jamnagar [CIT(A)- in short] in confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,528/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
