Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
From the Courts »
 CIT vs. ITD CEM India JV (Bombay High Court)
 Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association vs. UOI (Rajasthan High Court)
  H.T. MEDIA LIMITED Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), New Delhi Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 Vs. Index Securities Private Limited
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Ahmedabad Constitution For The Period From 18/09/2017 To 22/09/2017
  M/s Brothers & Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
  Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Iv Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Iv Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.
 Jcb India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax &
 Saheb Ram Om Prakash Marketing Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax & ORS

Mrs. Anita S. Katara, 1205-C Wing, Raheja Sherwood, Near NSE Grounds, Goregaon Mumbai 400063 Vs. The ITO-19(3)(1), 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400063
June, 10th 2015
                         ,                
              IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                    MUMBAI BENCHES `A' MUMBAI
            [ .. , Û è  .  ,                    è

            BEFORE SHRI        I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

            SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                    . / ITA No.1788/MUM/2013
                    [ [ /Assessment Year 2006-07
     Mrs. Anita S. Katara,    / The ITO-19(3)(1),
     1205-C Wing, Raheja            3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers,
                               Vs.
     Sherwood,                      Lalbaug, Parel,
     Near NSE Grounds,              Mumbai 400063
     Goregaon (East),
     Mumbai 400063
     è    . /   . / PAN/GIR No. : AHBPK0947N
          ( /Appellant)        ..        (× / Respondent)

      Appellant by             Ms. Mrugakshi K. Joshi
      Respondent by            Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya
                 / Da te o f Hearing        : 08/06/2015
               /Date of Pronouncement : 08/06/2015
                                     / O R D E R

PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M:

       This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it is directed against order
passed by Ld. CIT(A) -18, Mumbai dated11.01.2013 for assessment year 2006-
07. Grounds of appeal read as under:
       "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law:
       1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the learned
       Assessing Officer of Rs.3,67,985/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, in
       respect of disallowance of genuine gifts received by the Assessee from her sister,
       under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.




2.     The impugned penalty has been levied on the addition of Rs.7,90,000/-
and Rs.1,55,000/-, which were added to the income of the assessee being
unexplained cash credit.
                                            2                . / ITA No.1788/MUM/2013
                                                              [ [ /Assessment Year 2006-07




3.    During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that the
impugned addition on which the penalty has been levied was set aside by the
Tribunal   to   the    file   of   AO   vide    order    dated    21/2/2012       in   ITA
No.3294/Mum/2011 with the following observations:
      3. We have considered the issue and are of the opinion that the matter is to be re-
      examined by the Assessing Officer afresh. The contention that the provisions of
      section 56(1)(v) regarding the amount received from the relative was not there
      before Revenue authorities. Moreover it is to be established that the person who
      gifted money is assessee's sister as claimed. It was also to be established that
      the said sister is working as Dentist in U.K. The audit certificate placed before the
      CIT (A) with reference to the creditworthiness should have been admitted and
      examined by the CIT (A) which was not done. Therefore, without going to the
      merits of various claims, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to
      consider the additional evidence filed before the CIT (A) and also examine other
      contentions afresh. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence to
      the Assessing Officer to substantiate the claims. Needless to state that adequate
      opportunity should be given to assessee in the consequential assessment
      proceedings. With these directions the issue of gift is restored to the file of the
      Assessing Officer to examine afresh on the basis of facts and law.




4.    It was further brought to our notice that in pursuance to aforementioned order
of the Tribunal, the AO has considered this issue and after examining the evidence
submitted by the assessee addition has been deleted and returned income of the
assessee has been accepted. Reference in this regard was made to order passed by AO
dated 30/11/2012, copy of which was placed on our record and was also given to Ld.
DR.


5.    In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties we delete the
impugned penalty and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.


        Order pronounced in the open court on 08/06/2015
           Û   08/06/2015    

           Sd/-                                                     Sd/-
(.   / D.KARUNAKARA RAO)                                  (..  / I.P. BANSAL)
 è / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                           Û è / JUDICIAL MEMBER
  Mumbai;
                  Dated 08/06/2015
                            3           . / ITA No.1788/MUM/2013
                                        [ [ /Assessment Year 2006-07




    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.    / The Appellant
2.   × / The Respondent.
3.    È() / The CIT(A)-
4.      / CIT
      È
5.    ,   ,             / DR, ITAT,
     Mumbai
6.   [  / Guard file.


                                            / BY ORDER,
×  //True Copy//

                           /             (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                             ,  / ITAT, Mumbai
.../Vm, Sr. PS

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Sitemap

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions