Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All ITAT

Compulsory Development fee received by educational society is not a capital receipt

November 15, 2017 10404 Views 0 comment Print

Development fee payment was not optional or voluntary on the part of the students but it was compulsory charge in the nature of fee for studying and continuing study in the institutions of the assessee, therefore, development fee received by assessee could not be classified as capital in nature for specific purpose or part of corpus fund of assessee trust. It was part of the current receipt and partook the character of other fee charged by assessee on account of tuition fee, term fee, etc.

Re-Assessment merely on direction from Superiors is Invalid

November 15, 2017 1212 Views 0 comment Print

Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that if the AO was satisfied with the original assessment then the re-assessment order under section 147/ 148 of the Income Tax Act passed only on the direction of the superior officers is invalid.

Penalty u/s 271C can be levied for non-deduction of TDS and not for delayed deduction of TDS

November 15, 2017 7923 Views 0 comment Print

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata bench recently ordered that the penalty u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for the delayed deduction of TDS amount.

Penalty order u/s 271D & 271E would reckon from date when SCN was issued by AO

November 15, 2017 2832 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders.

Section 2(22)(e) not attracted if appellant has given his personal properties as collateral security to bank for loan

November 15, 2017 2019 Views 0 comment Print

The fact that the assessee had given his personal property as collateral security for enabling M/s. Palsons Drugs Pvt. Ltd to obtain loan and other credit facilities is not in dispute. Under the circumstances the proposition of law as laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs CIT’ (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case.

No penalty for failure to get books audited for Bonafide belief of non-applicability of Audit

November 15, 2017 3654 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty u/s. 271B is attracted for failure to get accounts audited u/s. 44AB. Even though the law prescribes the levy of penalty, in case of default, the same is not automatic as provisions of Section 273B gives relief, when there is a reasonable cause.

Penalty order barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) is not valid

November 15, 2017 5529 Views 0 comment Print

Order of penalty passed under sections 271D and 271E was to set aside as the same was passed after expiry of six months from the action initiated for imposition of penalty and barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c).

Expenditure on improvement of existing business is revenue expense

November 14, 2017 2139 Views 0 comment Print

Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai);  We noted that coal beneficiation has been defined as cost effective and significant step towards improving power plant efficiency and reducing the GHG emissions from the coal fired power plants in India would be to increase the availability of clean beneficiated coals using appropriate beneficiation technologies. […]

ITAT confirms addition for cash seized by police not explained satisfactorily

November 14, 2017 1830 Views 0 comment Print

Sri. P.P.Sharafuddin Vs. ITO (ITAT Cochin) The amount of Rs. 14 lakh was seized by the police from the assessee on 03.03.2008. At the time of seizure, the assessee did not mention that the amount seized belongs to his uncle. Because of the suspicious behavior and lack of explanation on the part of the assessee, […]

Examining application of income towards charitable objects while granting registration U/s. 12A not permitted

November 14, 2017 1263 Views 0 comment Print

CIT(E), at the stage of granting registration under section 12A was required to examine objects of society and not the application of income which would to be undertaken by AO on a year to year basis therefore, assessee’s objective being charitable within the meaning of section 2(15), CIT(E) was not justified in denying the registration on the ground that the assessee had not submitted its books of account.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031