The Hon’ble Amritsar bench has given a landmark judgement on the issue of 234E Fee levied prior to June,2015 in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited v./s Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), in I.T.A. No.90/Asr/2015 and has deleted the addition-
Hon’ble ITAT Ahemdabad in the case of Nikunjkumar H.Jariwala v/s ITO in I.T.A. No. 2404/Ahd/2011 vide order dated 19/03/2015 has held that as per the mandate provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, the AO was not justified in adopting the value of the property as adopted by the stamp valuation authority without referring to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value of the property.
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of ACIT V/s M/s Responsible Builders Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2726/Del /2011 has held that it is trite law that in order to determine whether there are reasons to believe that the income got escaped the assessment, one has to look at the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s M/S Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2015 has held that a mere non discussion or non mention in assessment order would not justify section 263 to be applied.
1. Tax Slabs should be revised as per the DTC Bill Provisions The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance (PSC) in its Report on the Direct Taxes Code Bill 2010 (DTC Bill) has appropriately recommended the following revised tax slabs for individual taxpayers. 0-3 Lakh – Nil 3-10 Lakh- 10% 10-20 Lakh – 20% Beyond 20 Lakh – […]
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of M/s. Fortune Ploymers Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT, has held that Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on an un-detailed assessment order passed in a cursory and summary manner .
Brief facts of the case are that The assessee received a sum of Rs.90,090/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses from the company M/s Bajaj Consultants Pvt. Ltd., wherein, he is a Director and claimed the same as exempt u/s 17(2) of the Act.
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of DCIT V/s Soni Sonu Mirchandani has held that indexed cost of acquisition to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the gifted assets.
The fact of actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the addition was made simply by applying the deeming provisions of section 50C. Therefore, in view of the various decisions as relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative as well as by the CIT(A), we do not find any error in the impugned order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c).
The dictum laid down in case of Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. is that incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless it is established that assesee has acted with malafide intention.
