Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO was not certain that for which limb he wanted to initiate penalty proceedings, that is, for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. AO initiated penalty proceedings on one footing and concluded on other footing, therefore, the basis of levy of penalty itself was not correct.
DCIT Vs Janki Hitendrakumar Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) CIT(A) has rightly concluded that the agricultural land parcels being situated in the rural area is outside the purview of expression ‘capital asset’ defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. Consequently, the rural agricultural land in question not being a capital asset is not susceptible to tax under […]
Navrathan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ADIT (ITAT Bangalore) Explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless the legislature specifically says so. In […]
Kapil Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Whether It Is Necessary To Start Construction of New House After The Date of Sale of Original Assets For Claiming Exemption Under Section 54F Held that : Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be liberally interpreted. An assessee who has purchased a house property is entitled […]
Rakesh Garg Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) As per the details of the three properties in which the assessee has claimed to have invested sale consideration of the land in question, only one property i.e. at sl. no. 1 of the list reproduced in para ‘6’ above is a constructed house and two others are only […]
Atos Information Technology Singapore Pte Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Facts- The assessee is incorporated in Singapore and is also a tax resident of that country. As stated by the AO, during the year under consideration the assessee had provided certain services to its group concern in India, viz. Atos India Pvt Ltd (Atos India) […]
When a commodity acquired a distinct name, use and commercial identity, it would acquire the trait of ‘manufacture’. Therefore, the activity of conversion of natural gas to compressed natural gas was entitled to avail additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia).
Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Surat) Facts- The Assessee Company being an investment company had received shares from its Promoters as a gift. The AO dismissed this claim stating that it was purchased by the assessee company at a discount from the said Promoters and that consideration was involved. Hence, AO disallowed the […]
Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Facts- The appellant (BCCI) has preferred an appeal against three show-cause notices issued by the department alleging that the tax exemption that the appellant is enjoying under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act should not be revoked for generating income through the IPL. […]
Shaheen Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Allahabad) Facts- The main sources of income of the assessee were from interest on FDRs, interest on saving bank account and interest income of his minor son and daughter. ROI of the assessee was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1) of the Act, and later on the case of the assessee […]
