Where assessee was under a bona fide belief about allowability of certain provisions and there was no suppression of facts or deliberate concealment on assessee’s part, mere disallowance by AO due to difference of opinion could not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
It was an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to notice under section 148 on 26-11-2013 and AO on the very same day served notice under section 143(2) upon assessee, whose signatures tally on the said notice without confronting the assessee with the remand report and the evidence produced by the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid and resultantly, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated and the same were quashed.
In the given case, the issue under consideration is if the new property has been invested in the name of assessees husband, then in such case whether the exemption under Section 54F can be denied to the assessee or not?
Interest income generated during pre-operative period was correctly reduced by assessee-company from WIP as the same was inextricably linked with the power project and would be considered as capital receipt
Notice under section 153C was to be issued with recording of separate satisfaction note even if AO of searched person and the other person, i.e., assessee was one and the same,therefore, in absence of the same, any order passed, in pursuance of such notice was void ab-initio and liable to be quashed
Where a vehicle was provided by assessee to the concerned parties and assessee was to bear the vehicle expenses actually incurred by the cab owners which will be reimbursed by the parties concerned, reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by assessee could not be treated as payment subject to TDS under section 194C.
DHL Logistics Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have to consider whether goodwill is an intangible asset under section 32, hence, eligible for claim of depreciation. In our view, this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) where the Hon’ble Supreme […]
Forward contracts in the nature of hedging transactions in course of normal import export activities to cover up losses on account of foreign exchange valuation difference results in business losses and not speculative one.
Revised/enhanced minimum threshold limit of tax effect of Rs. 50 Lakh vide CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 8-8-2019 was applicable not only for appeals to be filed by Revenue in future; but also for appeals already filed by Revenue in ITAT. Therefore, all existing appeals in ITAT, having tax effect below the revised/enhanced limit of Rs. 50,00,000, were to be treated as withdrawn/not pressed; and were, not maintainable.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied for bonafide explanation furnished by assessee as assessee had not offered interest income for tax due to wrong interpretations of the provisions of the Act, not on account of deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
