Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputed facts are, the Assessing Officer by treating the management charges as Head Office expenses has restricted the claim of the assessee to 5% of the total adjusted income in terms of section 44C of the Act. Whereas, learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the order passed […]
Necessary TDS was deducted and it was deposited in the Government Treasury. All these are on record and only there is a technical error that in the challan PAN number of the assessee is mentioned instead of TAN in the relevant column on account of bona-fide mistake, for which assessee should not be penalized or punished when there is no loss to the Revenue.
ACIT Vs M/s. Splendor Landbase Limited (ITAT Delhi) It is seen that section 153A starts with Non obstante clause which inter alia overrides the provisions of section 139. This shows that return filed under section 153A is a separate return. Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case […]
M/s. Hinduja Group India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Submission of detailed submitted before AO in summarised & Tabular Form before CIT cannot be considered as submission of any new evidence Power of the appellate authority clearly overrides the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 46A and it is open to the […]
Ms. G. Shoe Exports Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case, admittedly the Tribunal order was passed beyond three months from hearing. No reason whatsoever for the delay has been recorded. As held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court above, such delay is incurable and even administrative clearance cannot cure the same. As held by […]
M/s. Pratik Syntex Private Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant appeal before us, the inspector was deputed by the AO to make field enquiries who could not locate these three shareholders and the assessee also could not furnish the current addresses of these three new shareholders. These in the instant case before us, […]
It is clear from bare reading of section 143(1) that change of status as done by AO does not fall within any of the clauses thereof. Also, it could not be said that change of status of assessee fell within the meaning of expression ‘an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return’ as laid down in Explanation (a) to section 143(1). Accordingly, intimation issued under section 143(1) changing the status of assessee was not in accordance with law and AO was, therefore, directed to modify the intimation accepting the return of income as it was.
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 12.09.2014, passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-XX, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.144C(3) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. In the grounds of appeal, following grounds have been raised.
That the order passed by Assessing Officer (‘AO’) dated 30.12.2016 as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) dated 29.12.2017 and the additions/disallowances made and upheld are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.
ITAT held that, if book profit and tax payable u/s 115JB was based on certificate issued by Chartered Accountant then it cannot be held that, assesses claim was not bonafide or it has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty so levied deleted.
