Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Dinesh Jain has held that Penalty u/s. 271E is leviable if a person repays any loan, otherwise, than in accordance with provisions of section 269T. As per section 269T no person shall repay the loan otherwise, than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the person who has made the loan.
The assessing officer is a prospector of the revenue and he is no doubt expected to protect the interests of the revenue zealously, but such zeal has to be tempered with the rules of fair play and an anxiety to ensure that a opportunity is not lost to the assessee to make alternative arrangements for clearing the tax dues, once the stay applications filed under section 220(3) are rejected.
On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in case of DCIT Vs. M/s Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., (supra) it is to be seen that service agreement entered in case of M/s Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., clearly establishes an employer and employee relationship since Doctors are governed
Held – The assessee trust has taken various steps, including the construction of building and getting the necessary permission and sanction for running the school; so as to bring the school into “existence” during the year, although the school have separate running classes from next
“As evident from a plain look at the ground of appeal, the actual grievance of the appellant is not on merits but on the legal issue regarding limitations on the powers of the CIT(A) on the ground that post 1st June 2001
A bare perusal of the provision contained in Section 153C of the I .T. Act leaves no doubt that, as is provided under Section 158BD, where the Assessing Officer, while proceeding under Section 153A against a person who has been subjected to search and seizure under Section 132(1)
It is an admitted fact that the assessee has changed the method of depreciation from straight line method to written down value method. Deprecation has been calculated in accordance with the new method from the date of assets coming into use.
In the case of Cardinal Drugs Pvt Ltd.Hon’ble ITAT has observed that there was no scope for the A.O. to have resorted to the provision of Section 154 of the Act for the purpose of enhancing the income of the assessee.by stating as under:- The A.O. on long drawn process of reasoning should not have passed the order under Section154 of the Act. The issue raised by the A.O. in proceeding under Section 154 of the Act is highly debatable which requires the issue to be reconsidered by the A.O.about applicability of the provision of Section 115JB of the Act which was notraised by the A.O. in assessment or appellate proceedings.
Agra ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Singhal has held that Quality & lavishness of construction is not incriminating material. Reference cannot be made to the Valuation Officer in the absence of incriminating material/document found during the course of search
Hon’ble ITAT Agra in the case of ACIT V/s. Kalyani Chaturvedi held that Re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is unjustified and quashed the Re-assessment Order. Hon’ble ITAT has held as under
