Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
It is repeatedly held by the Courts that the penalty on the ground of concealment of particulars or non-disclosure of full particulars can be levied only when in the accounts/return an item has been suppressed dishonestly or the item has been claimed fraudulently or a bogus claim has been made. When the facts are clearly disclosed in the return of income,
As can be seen from the above the adjustment made by the assessee is according to the provisions of the Act. Since both the industrial galas fall within the block the WDV is increased by the actual cost of the asset falling within the block and reduced by the amount payable in respect of the asset sold. Accordingly we do not find any mistake in assessee’s working of the block of assets which is according to the provisions of section 43(6)(c). The A.O.’s action in denying the inclusion of asset within the block is on the condition that the asset was not put to use.
Where fair market value of the capital asset under transfer is less than the valuation as per SVA and such valuation as per SVA becomes final under Stamp Duty Act then the assessee is left with no choice and has to pay tax on the notional sale consideration on the valuation as per SVA.
In the present case, the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28.03.2003, pertaining to the A.V. 1996-97. Section 147 authorizes and permit the Assessing Officers to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment.
The Full Bench was constituted to consider whether for the purposes of allowing deduction under Ch. VI-A depreciation could be thrust on the assessee even though it had disclaimed the same for purposes of regular assessment. The assessee argued that as in accordance with Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 (SC), depreciation was optional and as Expl. 5 to s. 32 came into force only from AY 2002-2003, depreciation could not be thrust even for purposes of Ch. VI-A. HELD, deciding against the assessee:
