Gouranga Cement Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is undisputed fact that the assessee has the earned the long term capital income by way of transfer of the business assets such as factory building, Plant & Machinery, electric installation under the head slum sale. Thus the nature of LTCG is in the nature of business […]
AO disallowed 20% of total foreign travel expenses during the year under consideration. CIT(A) recorded that for assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 the disallowance was restricted to 10% of the total expenses incurred for foreign travel, against which Revenue preferred appeal to Delhi ITAT.
CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting approval sought by assessee under section 80G(5) on the allegation that assessee had sufficient disposable fund because sufficiency of funds available with an institution seeking the approval is not mentioned as condition under section 80G, which needs to be looked into before granting approval.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that Making addition on estimate basis by rejecting the books of account in the absence of any adverse material brought on record cannot stand.
To sum up, even under the amended law, in all cases, there must exist reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and a mere change of opinion on the same facts and law does not justify a reassessment. For a reassessment proceeding initiated after four years, it must further be established that the escapement was by reason of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
It is apparent that when the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the impugned transaction before the Assessing Officer that it decided to surrender an amount of Rs. 55 lakh. Thus, the factual matrix indicates that the assessee made the surrender when it had no explanation to offer. Thus, the assessee could not prove the bona fide of its claim.
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-V, Hyderabad, dated 31/08/2016 confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act dated 4.3.2015.
Where AO failed to record his satisfaction in the assessment order as to under which limb, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated against assessee, being essential condition was not fulfilled, penalty was liable to be deleted.
Where assessee did not furnish any evidence of earning agricultural income shown in return of income merely because assessee was holding agricultural land of 20 bighas would not prove that assessee earned any agricultural income or has any past savings so as to make any investment in the property.
Sub-section (1) of Sec. 271AAB of the Act uses the word may not shall. May cannot be equated with shall especially in penalty proceeding. Using the word may in our opinion, gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made default under said provision. Therefore we hold that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory and is discretionary.
