Penalty under 271FA was unjustified as there was no requirement to file the AIR in absence of reportable transaction during the financial year and also, department did not make out a case that the assessee had the recorded re portable transactions in the relevant financial year.
M/s. Kanchipuram Vaniga Vaisya-Dharma Paripalana Sangam Vs CIT (E) (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, this application seeking registration u/s.12AA of the Act, was filed on 10.07.2014. The Sub-section 2 of Sec. 12AA stipulates that an order granting or refusing the registration under Clause-B of Sub-Sec.2 shall be passed before the expiry of the six months from the […]
Irrespective of the period to which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act.
Smt. Annakkalanjiam Mathivanan Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals) have to appreciate the fact that the agricultural products in this country are traded in unorganized sector. The workforce in the agricultural sector is unorganized. When the agricultural products are traded in unorganized sector in the country, expecting the assessee […]
The assessee had not filed the audit report in this case. The assessee was very casual and did not enter appearance for the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty. The assessee has not made out a reasonable cause as mentioned u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for non-furnishing of audit report u/s 44AB of the I.T.Act. Hence, we are of the view that the penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act has been rightly imposed. It is ordered accordingly.
Charan Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) (i) Under Section 148 of the Act, the issue of notice to the Assessee and service of such notice upon the Assessee are jurisdictional requirements that must be mandatorily complied with. They are not mere procedural requirements. (ii) For the AO to exercise jurisdiction to reopen an assessment, notice […]
ITO Vs Mohanraj Trading & Exchange (ITAT Mumbai) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Ramdas Pharmacy [1970] 77 ITR 276 (Mad) had expounded that an appellate authority cannot decide only one issue arising out of many issues and decline to go into the other issues raised before it on the ground […]
An individual coparcener who was shown as owner in the registered sale deed could not be assessed for capital gain arising in respect of the property belonging to Hindu Undivided Family.
Balu Vitthal Kharate Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) Amendment to section 55A is effective from 01.07.2012 and the same doesn’t have retrospective effect. Exemption u/s 54B cannot be denied on the base that the land was purchased in son’s name when the new land was used for agricultural purpose. FACTS – Assessee, along with 5 other […]
Where special auditor was appointed under section 142(2A) at fag-end of expiry of limitation to pass assessment order and for sole purpose of extending limitation period for assessment order, i.e., just before 23 days in expiry limitation under section 153(1) such appointment was illegal and invalid therefore, to be quashed.
