IT authority has no option/jurisdiction to meddle in the matter either by directing the assessee to maintain its accounts in a particular manner or adopt a different method for valuing the work-in-progress.
Since, the determination of arm’s length price in the appeal effect order has not lead to any transfer pricing adjustment, with no effect on income of the assessee, hence, penalty provisions are not applicable in this case, therefore, we cancel the orders of the authorities below thereby deleting the penalty in dispute.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruling on Ankur Scientific vs Dy. CIT case. Assessment of share gains as business income challenged. Disallowance of weighted deduction contested.
Quashing the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Excise Commissioner, the Delhi High Court held that the mere fact that the vehicle was used to transport liquor would not be sufficient for confiscating the same if the owner of the vehicle is able to establish that he/ she was not involved in the offence.
Explore ITAT Mumbai’s order on Apax Partners India vs. DCIT regarding transfer pricing, legal fees, and travel expenses. Key insights on taxation under section 40(a)(ia)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot bench, while allowing the assessees’ appeal, held that the sale of land cannot be treated as business activity for the purpose of levying income tax even though there is a higher volume of sale consideration.
Nowhere in the assessment order states the specific charge of alleged concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law.
The present appeals arise from a batch of judgments dealing with cases which come from Maharashtra and West Bengal. Insofar as the civil appeals relating to Maharashtra are concerned, the subsidy scheme of the State Government took the form of an exemption of entertainment duty in Multiplex Theatre Complexes newly set up
Shri Nilesh Janardan Thakur Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The AOs case is that the assessee has received money without any consideration which is taxable under the provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The AO has brought out number of reasons to come to the conclusion that money is taxable u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. […]
This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT’s impugned order is unexceptionable because it is premised upon the circumstance that in the absence of any fresh tangible material, it was not open, on mere re-appreciation of the existing circumstances, to reopen the concluded scrutiny assessment. The ITAT’s reasoning cannot, therefore, be faulted.
