<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (2) TMI 1045 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392601</link>
    <description>A vague notice under section 274 that does not specify whether the alleged default is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars vitiates penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). A write-back of unclaimed credit balances was not taxable where the liability arose in a period when the assessee was not taxable and no deduction had earlier been allowed. Contribution to an officers&#039; club was treated as allowable business expenditure because it served employee welfare and had been consistently allowed on similar facts. Charges from disputed occupation of port property were characterised as revenue in nature, but the unrealised portion was not taxable in the relevant year because the amount had not crystallised and real income had not accrued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2020 23:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1045 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392601</link>
      <description>A vague notice under section 274 that does not specify whether the alleged default is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars vitiates penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). A write-back of unclaimed credit balances was not taxable where the liability arose in a period when the assessee was not taxable and no deduction had earlier been allowed. Contribution to an officers&#039; club was treated as allowable business expenditure because it served employee welfare and had been consistently allowed on similar facts. Charges from disputed occupation of port property were characterised as revenue in nature, but the unrealised portion was not taxable in the relevant year because the amount had not crystallised and real income had not accrued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>