Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court was referred an issue ‘mere failure to tick mark the applicable grounds’ in the notice issued under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) vitiate the entire penalty […]
It was held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer disregarding the instructions of the CBDT are liable to the set aside as AO has not taken prior approval of the authorities mentioned.
Notification No. 13/2017 provides that the Services provided by Director to the body corporate would come under the ambit of Reverse Charge Mechanism. By the virtue of the said Notification, the services provided by the Director would be taxable. But the question arises that whether the said entry of the Notification is under the permissible limits as prescribed by the Parent Act i.e Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017.
Where the assessee objects to the adoption of stamp duty valuation as deemed sale consideration during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to make a reference to the DVO.
When no exempt income was received or receivable on the investments, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is warranted.
