The contention of the Ld. D.R. has no merit that ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad was empowered to issue notice as per PAN or it was issued as per Computerized System of the Department because it is against the provisions of Law. As such the issue would be in violation of the principles of law and as such the internal procedure provided by the department would not justify the illegality committed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad.
Learn about ITAT Pune’s decision on deduction under section 10B/10A in relation to TP adjustment by Approva Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT.
Payment for IUC Charges is not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident recipients and hence TDS was not deductible as per provisions of section 195 of the Act.
Shri Amod Shivlal Shah Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessments ought not to be based merely on the confession obtained at the time of search and seizure and survey operations, but should be based on the evidences/material gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter, while framing the relevant assessments.
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals)–21, Mumbai dated 28-3-2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee in its appeal raised several grounds of appeal both on validity of issue of service of notice under section 143(2)/148 of the Act as well on merits of the disallowances.
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.22,52,471/-. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading/ Distribution of ITC Products under the name and style of M/s. DK Enterprises. On verification of the P & L A/c, audited report and books of account of the assessee, it was noticed that assessee had made huge payments to M/s. Hanuman Traders in cash.
Recording of satisfaction by AO of person searched is a condition precedent for AO of other person to acquire jurisdiction and unless jurisdictional condition is satisfied, there can be no question of making assessment or reassessment in the case of such other person.
Mere making of claim, which was not sustainable in law, by itself, did not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars, unless mens rea was established, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
Where assessee after, investing capital gain in purchase of new agricultural land within prescribed time, harbored a bona fide belief that there was not any tax liability of capital gain and substantiated his explanation with relevant evidence, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified.
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grievance of Revenue relates to deleting addition of Rs. 7,64,271 made by assessing officer on account of transfer fees and addition made on account of premium received by assessee from its members on utilization of Transfer of Development Rights. 3. The rival contentions have been heard and records perused.
