Show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
The CIT(A) is directed to first address the claim of the assessee namely that the online platform itself was not permitting the assessee to register as a legal heir in order to e-file the appeal, thus the assessee cannot be penalized for non compliances which are a result of limitations of the platform provided.
These rules may be called the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Third Amendment Rules, 2017. They shall come into force with effect from the 22nd May 2018.
Reference is invited to the Minutes of the Meeting dated 9.5.2018 under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement as uploaded on the DGFT’s website
Conclusion: Notional interest on delay in realization of trade debt could not be charged from AE as there was uniformity in the act of the assessee in not charging interest from both AE and Non-AE debtors for delayed realization of export proceeds.
Where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profits but to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it cannot but be regarded as an institution established for charitable purposes and proviso to section 2(15) could not be applied so as to deny exemption under section 11.
G.D. Agrawal, Vice-President – This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Dehradun dated 21st February, 2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal CIT & Others (Delhi High Court) In the present case we perceive that an equitable resolution is possible on interpretation of the provisions without undermining the object and purpose behind the Amendment Act. Thus while we have rejected the argument that advance tax of Rs. 85,50,000/- can treated as payment of […]
It is the case of the appellant that it did file its monthly ER-1 returns manually, without any delay but the respondent without verifying the same has imposed the penalty only on the ground that the ER-1 return was filed electronically beyond the prescribed time limit.
Smt. Vidhya Poonia Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) AO at the time of initiation of proceedings under section 148 has to form the belief on the basis of the material available which is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that prima facie income assessable to tax has escaped assessment, therefore, filing of return with wrong jurisdiction could […]
