Only in the cases where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and not prejudicial to the interest of the assessee can be reopened under section 263 and the assessee is not eligible to claim any new benefit in the assessment proceedings pursuant to section 263.
Where the assessee is not able to substantiate his claim of expenditure with any evidence, penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c)
We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The reply of the assessee in response to show cause notice against levy of concealment penalty have already been reproduced in para 5 of this order. The relevant portion of statutory provisions regulating levy of concealment penalty are reproduced below for the sake of convenience: –
For the purpose of allowability of any expenditure under the Act , what is material is the classification between the capital and revenue and the same does not recognise any concept of deferred revenue expenditure.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case and the decisions cited before us. The issue before us as to whether or not the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA in terms of the provisions amended w.e.f 1.4.2000 even when the assessee had already started providing telecommunication services in the period relevant to the AY 1997-98. Before proceeding further, we may have a look at the provisions relevant to the AY 1997-98 and
ACIT Vs. Kribhco (ITAT Delhi) – Terms ‘exempt income’ and ‘deduction from income’ are two different propositions and, therefore, where assessee’s income was not exempt under section 10 rather same was eligible for deduction under section 80P, assessee’s case was not hit by provisions of section 14A.
Where the assessee as the owner of the building was only exploiting the property as owner by letting out the same and realizing income by way of rent, such rental income was liable to be assessed under the head `income from house property’
Article 5(2)(i) of the India-Mauritius DTAA defines “permanent establishment” to include “a building site or construction or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, where such site, project or supervisory activity continues for a period of more than nine months“. The assessee, a Mauritius company, executed three contracts in India
We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding rate of deduction of tax at source in respect of job work assigned by the assessee to others as an event manager. There is no dispute that the assessee had not deducted tax at source. The dispute is only whether the case of the assessee will be covered u
We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. The crux of the matter under consideration whether under the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration there is transfer of asset and same is liable to capital gains or loss. The case of the revenue is that the assessee was not the owner of the plot therefore there was no transfer
