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.
The principles of natural justice are those which have been laid out by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of an individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights.
The assessee has shownexpenditure on advertisement through outdoor display which includes payment for advertisement on hoarding/board. The A.O. further noticed that the assessee has deducted TDS @ 2% u/s.194C on these payments.
In the assessment order passed u/s.144 the income was at Rs.12,96,457/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,20,000/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO found that there was a cash deposit of Rs.11,76,457/- in the bank account of the assessee maintained with ICICI Bank.
The assessee entered into an agreement with an Export House M/s Rajnikant & Bros. As per the terms of the agreement M/s Rajnikan & Bros imported consignment of “Almonds in Shell” at Madras Port. This import was actually for one of the nominee of the assessee M/s Peanut Products
In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476, an advance was given to the said assessee by the sister concern, which held 50% of the share holding in the assessee concern for mordenisation project.
It is settled law that that frequency and magnitude of transaction are also important factor to decide whether the transaction is business transaction or investment transaction. Now in our considered opinion, the magnitude of share transaction in this case does call for any enquiry
At the time of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, which is necessary for claiming exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax is not required to look into the activities, where such activities have not or are in the process of its initiation.
Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT has in the case of Shri G.N.Mohan Raju,v/s ITO in ITA No.242 & 243(Bang) 2013 has held that notice u/s 143(2) issued prior to filing of return in response to notice u/s 147 is invalid, even if return is filed late.
Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench has in the case of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v/s DCIT in IT(SS)A No. 16/Hyd/2011 has held that Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would operate prospectively as it curtails the right of the assessee.
