Facts of the case show that the assessee filed return of income declaring net income of Rs. 24,14,640/- electronically on 21.10.2007. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act. The assessee noticed that credit for advance tax of Rs. 1,10,000/- and TDS of Rs. 5,38,560/- was not allowed to the assessee.
The dispute is regarding treating the assessee in default u/s 201 (1) and consequential levy of interest u/s 201 (1A) for failure to deduct TDS in respect of amounts payable to M/s Overseas Shipbuilding Cooperation Centre in connection with consultancy work.
In the instant case, all the shares have been bought by the assessee in the regular course of his business, employing common funds, depositing them in the same D-Mat account, and even through the same broker and infrastructure.
The penalty in the instant case stands levied in the sum of Rs.2,41,858/-, i.e., at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, in view of Explanation (4) to section 271(1)(c). The entire enhancement in assessment having been absorbed against brought forward (unabsorbed) business losses
The subsequent reversal of the legal position by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court does not authorize the department to reopen the assessement which stood closed on the basis of the law, as it stood at the relevant time.”
It was contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee that since the AO has passed an order u/s. 195(2) of the Act allowing the assessee to issue shares without tax deduction at source, the issue of shares made by the assessee on 30.03.2004 and 30.09.2004 cannot be the subject-matter of proceedings u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act.
In this case Shri B.D. Giri, ITP referred to section 288(2)(v) & (vi) of the IT Act and claimed that since he is retired departmental Officer, therefore, without any certificate of registration as ITP can appear before the Income-tax Authorities and the Tribunal.
The entire grievance revolves around the premium paid by the assessee to M/s. MMRDA Ltd. for the leasehold rights acquired by the assessee through the lease deed dt. 22nd November, 2004. It is the say of the Revenue that this lease premium was liable for deduction of tax at source failing
The assessee has shown Long Term Capital gains during the year at Rs. 3888,313/- which has been accepted by the AO. If the AO was of the firm belief that the assessee is engaged in trading activities in the shares then it should not make any difference if the shares are held more than 12 months
AO has not made any discussion regarding the subjects raised by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 and the AO has mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry. Further, no evidence had been placed that the claim made by assessee was objectively
