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!
Article contains Instructions for filing ITR-1 -SAHAJ for Assessment Year 2018-19 / Financial Year 2017-18 based on ITR Released by CBDT vide its notification no. Notification No. 16/2018-Income Tax / G.S.R. 332(E) dated: 03/04/2018. Instructions for filling ITR-1 SAHAJ for A.Y. 2018-19 General Instructions These instructions are guidelines for filling the particulars in this Return […]
Article contains Instructions for filing ITR-4-SUGAM for Assessment Year 2018-19 / Financial Year 2017-18 based on ITR Released by CBDT vide its notification no. Notification No. 16/2018-Income Tax / G.S.R. 332(E) dated: 03/04/2018. Instructions for filling ITR-4 SUGAM for A.Y. 2018-19 General Instructions These instructions are guidelines for filling the particulars in this Return Form. […]
Appointment letter usually provides that an employee must serve a notice period upon giving a notice to resign from the employment. This is to provide adequate time to the employer to ensure proper handover of the tasks of the resigning employee. However such appointment letter also provides that resigning employee can pay a certain amount
To sum up, even under the amended law, in all cases, there must exist reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and a mere change of opinion on the same facts and law does not justify a reassessment. For a reassessment proceeding initiated after four years, it must further be established that the escapement was by reason of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
It is apparent that when the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the impugned transaction before the Assessing Officer that it decided to surrender an amount of Rs. 55 lakh. Thus, the factual matrix indicates that the assessee made the surrender when it had no explanation to offer. Thus, the assessee could not prove the bona fide of its claim.
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-V, Hyderabad, dated 31/08/2016 confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act dated 4.3.2015.
Where AO failed to record his satisfaction in the assessment order as to under which limb, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated against assessee, being essential condition was not fulfilled, penalty was liable to be deleted.
Where assessee did not furnish any evidence of earning agricultural income shown in return of income merely because assessee was holding agricultural land of 20 bighas would not prove that assessee earned any agricultural income or has any past savings so as to make any investment in the property.
CBDT Vs. Satya Narain Shukla (Delhi High Court) A plain reading of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule. Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause […]
Sub-section (1) of Sec. 271AAB of the Act uses the word may not shall. May cannot be equated with shall especially in penalty proceeding. Using the word may in our opinion, gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made default under said provision. Therefore we hold that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory and is discretionary.
