Since the Custom Broker was liable to verify genuineness of importer-exporter code, IEC number, identity of client to prevent facilitation of export prohibited goods, therefore, custom broker was liable for penalty in case of breach of KYC norms and mandatory obligations under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.
Penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) could not be imposed merely for the delay in filing Quarterly TDS Statement as the entire tax along with interest thereon had been deposited in to Govt. account and later, assessee filed quarterly TDS returns for all the quarters and Revenue had not suffered any loss because tax deducted was already deposited on time and there was mere technical or venial breach to provisions contained in Act for submitting return/statements of TDS.
Indian Geotechnical Services Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Deduction on payment of employees contribution towards PF/ESI made before the due date of filing Income Tax Return under section 139(1) was allowable as the amended provisions of section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) were not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. Held: Assessee raised the […]
An interest-free debt funding of an overseas company in the nature of a special purpose vehicle (SPV), with a corresponding obligation to use it for the purpose of acquisition of a target company abroad, could not be compared with a loan simpliciter, and be, subjected to an arm’s length price adjustment on account of notional interest on a loan by assessee company to its fully owned foreign subsidiary as balances reflected on account of exchange difference for notional conversions could not be treated as outstanding dues.
Since he confiscated gold was not of Foreign origin and smuggled into India and the confiscated Indian Currency which had been claimed by assessee was not established or proved to be the sale proceeds of smuggled Gold, therefore, the order was passed to release the 6 pcs confiscated gold bars and Indian Currency to assessee being the rightful owner of the goods.
CIT to at least record a prima facie finding that certain amount claimed by assessee as deduction in its computation of income de facto related to earning of dividend income. Thus, it was held that in the absence of any such prima facie finding, the reassessment was erroneous and no addition could be made under section 14A.
The onus to prove the identity, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was solely on assessee under section 68 and merely because statutory approvals had been obtained by assessee, viz., FIPB and RBI did not sanctify the transaction especially when according to AO they were all unexplained investment.
Revenue authorities were restrained from continuing with reassessment till further orders with respect to notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 without following the procedure prescribed under section 148A in 79 cases.
Disallowances u/s.14A could not exceed amount of exempt income, therefore, AO was directed to restrict disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income earned for the impugned assessment year.
Supertech Forgings (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar)Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar) Conclusion: Additions made for alleged bogus purchase bills by AO was not justified as AO had not applied his mind to the information received from the Investigating Wing and he had not provided the opportunity to cross examine a person whose statement was […]
