Medical illness and that to be in the nature of the typhoid fever and UTI is definitely reasonable cause for non- appearing on the date and therefore, we are of the opinion that no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(b) in such circumstances as the same is covered under exception of ‘reasonable cause’ as enshrined in section 273B.
The competent authority has desired that wherever such cases are brought to the knowledge of concerned Assessing Authority and if the concerned dealer approaches the Assessing Authority with details of such orders which are multiple Assessment Orders of the category mentioned above, then necessary remedies/measures as prescribed under Section 74B of DVAT Act, 2004 read with Rule 36B of DVAT Rule, 2005 relating to the review/rectification should be exercised as per the provisions of law.
Amendment to notification 63/94-Customs (N.T), dated 21.11.1994 so as to notify Valmikinagar in West Champaran District, Bihar as a Land Customs Station.
The Territorial Jurisdiction of the Regional Office of DGFT at Hyderabad in Appendix- 1A of Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 is amended.
It is advised to identify the uncovered Beedi establishments as well as unenrolled employees, and ensure social security benefits to all the eligible and left out employees under the schemes of EPF & MP Act, 1952.
The Court is not satisfied that the retraction made by the Assessee two years after the declaration was bonafide. There was no satisfactory explanation for not including the said amount in the return of income filed by the Assessee on 26th September, 2009.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – III, Jaipur dated 19.02.2016 for A.Y. 2011- 12 wherein the assessee has challenged the levy penalty of Rs. 1,02,400/- u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act.
In the present case, the assessee has been able to prove identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Therefore, the authorities below should not have made or confirmed the addition of Rs. 5.75 crores in the hands of the assessee.
In absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen already concluded assessment. It was further held that since there was no whisper in reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to possession of AO subsequent to issue of intimation, therefore, it was an arbitrary exercise of power conferred u/s 147.
In a major relief to the Ernst & Young Pvt Ltd (EY), the Kolkata bench of the ITAT confirmed the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing deduction under sections 10A and 10AA of the Income Tax Act to the Company without set off of loss of taxable unit.
