Clean Science & Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the penalty order as well as the assessment order, it would reveal that the penalty was levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income […]
CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in holding that loss from sale of shares was short-term capital losses and hence not eligible for set of against income from profession of assessee.
We noted that the turnover has increased more than double and consequently expenses have increased little more than doubt on both counts i.e., salary as well as EB charges. We noted that the AO has made estimated disallowance on the basis that the assessee has not furnished any separate documents like details of staff or details of electricity bills.
Poonawalla Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The only issue pressed is about restricting the addition under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by considering only such investments which yielded tax free dividend income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the […]
HC held that despite lapse of four years and a scrutiny assessment, there is fresh tangible material in the present case in the form of information of beneficiaries of bogus LTCL/STCL report prepared by the office of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) which reveals that Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. is a penny stock whose share price was manipulated in trade by way of a complex web of pre-arranged or artificial transactions to book long term/short term capital gain/loss to the beneficiaries.
The only fault of the assessee was of claiming Tax deducted at source wrongly. The learned Assessing Officer should have refused the credit of such TDS but should not have taxed interest income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, even on the merits the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied.
Merely reproducing the conclusions of investigation report in his own words is indeed borrowed satisfaction as contended by counsel for the assessee. Consequently, the Bench is inclined to decide these grounds of cross objection in favour of the assessee.
ACIT Vs Bharat Carriers ltd (ITAT Cuttack) Under sub-item 2(ii) of Item III of Appendix I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, higher rate of depreciation is admissible on motor trucks used in a business of running them on hire. Therefore, the user of the same in the business of transportation of the assessee is […]
State Bank of India Vs Rohit Ferro Tech Limited (NCLT Kolkata) Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority Under Sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central […]
Bhikhabhai Ambalal Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. AR submitted that mere existence of addition during the assessment proceedings does not attract provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, the CIT(A) has not pointed out as to on what basis the penalty was imposed. In fact, notice under Section 274 read […]
