Commissioner cannot refuse to entertain a revision petition filed by the assessee under Section 264 of the Act if it is maintainable on the ground that a similar issue has arisen for consideration in another year and is pending adjudication in appeal or another forum.
In our opinion, for determining the income from the property, it should be rate of return on the investment of similar amount in another asset. Therefore, in our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in estimating the ALV on the basis of interest which assessee would have earned on the investment of the similar amount.
No scrutiny proceedings can be initiated if notice under section 143(2) is not received by assessee within the prescribed period.
A division bench of the Delhi ITAT, last week held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied if the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) was determined as per the scheme of section 92C in good faith and with due diligence.
Once the assessee is a beneficiary of the amount received as a consequence of the transfer executed by her husband, of which she had no knowledge, she offered that during the course of the assessment proceedings, that does not mean that her act can be brought within the penalty provision.
ITAT held penalty under section 271D not leviable where cash loan was deposited without control and promptly refunded, citing absence of satisfaction and reasonable cause.
Non-Speculative Business Loss can be set off against speculative Business Income
It is a manifest procedure that before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner, the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake.
In our considered view, no writ petition is maintainable against a show-cause notice. The petitioner, if so advised, may submit objections against the show-cause notice and if any adverse order is passed, he shall have his remedy against the same in accordance with law.
Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that loss derived from trading in derivatives carried out prior to 25/01/2006 cannot be treated as speculative loss and it should be treated as normal business loss under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
