Explore the impact of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT on Section 14A disallowance. ITAT Kolkata sets aside Ld. CIT(A) order, directing re-computation in light of strategic investments.
No penalty u/s.271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by the assessee.
CESTAT held that mere short payment of duty by the appellant is not sufficient in order to invoke the extended period.
Upon disposal of appeal, in case adjudication order is upheld or modified, a fresh demand has to be raised in Form GST APL-04. Therefore, Garnishee notice become infructuous
ACIT Vs Rameshbhai Jivrajbhai Desai (ITAT Ahmedabad) During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order passed under Section 153A of the Act was held to be void ab initio and thus there is no addition in the […]
If an agreement for sale of immovable property is not registered, it does not amount to transfer in view of the 2001 amendment carried out to section 55A of the Transfer of Property Act and also simultaneous amendments to section 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908
Aditya Saraf HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is observed, as per the investigation conducted in relation to the shares of the company, on which, the assessee offered long term capital gain, it was found that it is a penny stock company. It was also found that due to price manipulation and rigging, there was […]
Sant Tukaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) We find the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by the assessee is no more resintegra in view of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC). The Hon‟ble Apex Court […]
HC dismisses application to Quash FIR filed against a HDFC Bank Manager for allowing a Customer to Operate Bank Locker despite receiving prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act to put a stop operation on the Bank accounts, fixed deposits and Bank lockers of that Customer.
ITAT held that penalty under section 271AAA(1) cannot be imposed in a case where the assessee has offered the undisclosed income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, specifying the manner in which such income has been derived and if the assessee pays the tax along with interest of such income.
