2012 (2) TMI 235 - ITAT, KOLKATA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Braj Binani, Kolkata

Penalty - Search - Block assessment - Jewelery worth RS 12,77,635 added as Undisclosed Income - CIT(A) deleted entire additions - Tribunal: duplicate bills were neither found at the time of search nor were produced before the Investigating Authority ......

2009 (12) TMI 673 - ITAT DELHI

Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax , Delhi IV

Intimation of Losses ......

...........equent assessment year, in which such claim is made by the assessee. In this respect, therefore, the ld. CIT was very much justified in holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue insofar as the observation to the effect “loss to be carried forward” made by the Assessing Officer is concerned and he, accordingly, was justified in setting aside the assessment on the above issue to be made afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. In the result, the present appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for a statistical purpose in the manner as indicated above.

2002 (9) TMI 255 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus M. K. Chatterjee.

Loss Return ......

........... the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1987-88, as the income-tax return filed for the assessment year was filed beyond the time limit set out in section 139(1) and, accordingly, restriction placed in section 80 of the Act rendered the loss ineligible for carry forward and set off. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, CIT(A) erred in holding that the loss for the assessment year 1987-88, which amounted to Rs. 1,63,408, is required to be set off in this assessment year. To this extent, we vacate the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer. 25. In the result, revenue's appeal is allowed.