TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st order of CIT(A)-XX, Kolkata in Appeal No.95-A/CIT(A)-XX/Wd-34(1)/08-09/Kol dated 18.10.2010. Return was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on 19.01.2007 by Assessing Officer. The impugned rectification order was passed by I.T.O. Ward-34(1), Kolkata u/s 154 of the Act for relevant assessment year 2005-06 vide his order dated 19.09.2008. 2. Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO was unjustified in treating the business income of the appellant earned from short deposits of surplus money as other source income and the AO further erred in considering/treating the income from share transaction by reducing such income by total expenses without disallowing STT and donation and thus erred in wrongly computing the rebate under section 88E. 3. The brief facts are that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue is highly debatable and for this jurisdictional argument he stated that the AO has no power u/s 154 of the Act to recompute rebate u/s 88E of the Act, which is highly debatable and even though, on merits, Assessing Officer rightly allowed in his intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has not accepted the plea of assessee and confirmed the action of the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made u/s 154. The Ld.AR did not argue on the merit of the issue. I do not find merit in the contentions of the appellant. That claim of expenses @30% against income from other sources is arbitrary and certainly not supported by any material on record. I do not agree with the ld. AR that the issue is debatable. The claim of the appellant is not allowable and is mistake apparent from record in as mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
