CIT Vs. Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Due to difference of opinion on below issues between Justices S Muralidhar and Prathiba M Singh, Delhi High Court, has referred the Mitusubishi’s TDS case to Chief Justice for appropriate orders:- (i) Whether the ITAT fell into error in holding that Section 40(a) (i) of […]
Mattapalli Chalamayya Charitable Trust Visakhapatnam Vs CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) If the activities of the trust are genuine, at the stage of commencement of institution, registration has to be granted automatically and claim u/s 80G of the Act can be followed with grant of registration. Ld. Commissioner (Exemptions) did not reject the request of the assessee […]
In our view, the issue relating to the assessees claim of deduction under section 54F, is debatable in nature. Merely because the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, agreed for disallowance of its claim for deduction under section 54F, will not lead to a conclusion that the assessee has either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of his income. That being the case, in our view, it is not a fit cause for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Assumption of jurisdiction over assessee under section 153C on the basis of statement of searched person, however, seized documents making no reference of either the assessee or any transaction entered into by it, was highly misplaced and, therefore, set aside.
In the present case, the fact that the entire ‘undisclosed income’ was declared by the appellant in the statement recorded during search and the same was also disclosed in the return filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A, clearly goes to show the bona fides of the appellant, not warranting imposition of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act.
M/s. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The bona fide error or bonafide claim constitutes valid defence against the charge of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars […]
Where assessee had offered actual amount received on sale of property for taxation, revenue authorities were not justified in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property
It is now well settled that a petitioner / plaintiff is the dominus litis and it is open to him to pursue or abandon his case. Withdrawal cannot be denied except when the person making the prayer has obtained some advantage / benefit, which he seeks to retain.
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.
