Additions in respect of which penalty was confirmed has been accepted by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, leading to substantial question of law. Thus when Hon’ble High Court admitted substantial question of law on additions, it becomes apparent that issue is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act.
Addition on account of cash deposits can be made only if the source of the deposits remains unexplained. If, on the other hand, the cash deposits in the bank are from the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, then such transactions cannot be said to be unexplained.
Permanent Magnets Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It has been held that the TDS statements which have been filed earlier to 01.06.2015 then no fee is leviable u/s 234E of Income Tax Act, 1961. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT The above mentioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.08.2018 […]
ACIT Vs M/s. E-city Projects Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The Tribunal in its Judgment, while appreciating the facts, has observed that the various malls are built by Assessee and are operated from the year 2001. The operational income received from the said activity, in the form of rent, and other service charges was consistently […]
DCIT Vs District Cooperative Bank Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has claimed before us that the amount of closing allowance has been paid to the employees from year to year in percentage terms of salary and therefore duly quantifiable provision. The Ld. DR also could not controvert this fact that the amount of closing allowance […]
The issue under consideration is whether the land purchased by the assessee as agricultural land & whether the income from such sale is business income or capital gains?
AO of the searched person had not rebutted the presumption that the seized documents belonged to M/s. C Ltd but belonged to other person, i.e, assessee, therefore, issue of notice under section 153C on assessee was illegal.
Impugned bank certificate is not an incriminating document based on which the concluded assessment in the case of the assessee can be disturbed. In view of this according to us , we hold that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee in absence of any incriminating evidence leading to any unaccounted income unearthed during the course of search.
Coming to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the said section also provides that any interest, royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act on which tax is deductible at source under chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. We therefore find that both the provisions of section 195(1) as well as 40(a)(ia) of the Act talks about deduction of tax at source where the sum is chargeable under this Act.
We noted that in the very first year i.e. AY 2011-12, the depreciation has already allowed the claim of depreciation. We noted that in the income tax code, there is a provision/ concept of block of asset and once any asset enters into block asset and claim of depreciation in very first year is allowed, in subsequent year the deprecation cannot be disallowed in case the first year is not
