Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that if the AO was satisfied with the original assessment then the re-assessment order under section 147/ 148 of the Income Tax Act passed only on the direction of the superior officers is invalid.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata bench recently ordered that the penalty u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for the delayed deduction of TDS amount.
The fact that the assessee had given his personal property as collateral security for enabling M/s. Palsons Drugs Pvt. Ltd to obtain loan and other credit facilities is not in dispute. Under the circumstances the proposition of law as laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs CIT’ (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case.
Penalty u/s. 271B is attracted for failure to get accounts audited u/s. 44AB. Even though the law prescribes the levy of penalty, in case of default, the same is not automatic as provisions of Section 273B gives relief, when there is a reasonable cause.
CBEC has issued 22 Notifications related to IGST, CGST, and UTGST dated: 14/11/2017 which are effective from 15th November 2017 on the Midnight of 14th November 2017 as per its tradition of doing everything last minute. Notifications were hosted on CBEC websites around 23.15 or after on 14th November or on 15th November. So CBEC issues notification […]
Sri. P.P.Sharafuddin Vs. ITO (ITAT Cochin) The amount of Rs. 14 lakh was seized by the police from the assessee on 03.03.2008. At the time of seizure, the assessee did not mention that the amount seized belongs to his uncle. Because of the suspicious behavior and lack of explanation on the part of the assessee, […]
The petitioner had questioned and challenged the validity of office order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Secretary, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as Maha RERA for short). In the impugned order the Maha RERA observed that since the term ‘Co promoter’ is not defined in the Act,Rules or Regulations, it […]
Shri R K Jain Vs. Indian Bank Association (IBA) (Central Information Commission) Taking into account that the IBA performs functions as State agency and its majority control vests in Government of India appointed Managing Directors of Public Sector Banks, the IBA qualifies to be a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore, directs the IBA […]
A reassessment order cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice u/s 143(2) being issued as the requirement of issuance of such notice is a jurisdictional one and section 292BB cannot cure jurisdictional error.
ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Andhra Cricket Association (ITAT Vishakhapatnam) The assessee is receiving grants from BCCI partly as reimbursements for various tournaments conducted by the assessee. The assessee has already constructed a stadium at Visakhapatnam suitable for conducting ‘test matches‘. During the year under consideration, the assessee has also commenced construction of stadiums at various places […]
