Where the land is shown in revenue record as agricultural land and no permission was taken for conversion of land, it is immaterial whether any agricultural income is shown in the return or not, the gains from sale are exempt from taxation.
The action of the lower authorities in not following the case laws on the issue and in spite of legal precedents, still not quashing the penalty of Rs. 2,22,240/- is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, illusory and against the facts of the case and thus deserves to be deleted.
Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has deleted penalty u/s 271B in the case of Dr. Shantanu Datta in I.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2017 as there was a bona fide belief entertained by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same constituted a reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee to comply with the requirement of section 44AB.
DCIT Vs M/s DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) In this case since there was no reason at all for reopening the case on the issue of treatment of royalty expenses ,since the same had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, before the recording of reasons for reopening the present case. […]
This Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection for assessment year 2010-11 arise against the CIT(A), Gandhinagar’s order dated 22.05.2014, in case no. CIT(A)/GNR/2 12/2013-14, reversing Assessing Officer’s action making long term capital gains addition of Rs. 70,34,635/- by invoking Section 50C of the Act, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act.
Interest received from debtors for late payment of sale proceeds partakes the character of sale proceeds, and therefore, assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80-IC in respect of such interest.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow bench recently held that the charitable nature of the activities of a society cannot be suspected as the same was within its objects as given in the bye-laws.
Challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi (for short hereinafter called as “the learned CIT (A)’) in Appeal No.119 of 2011-12 dated 13.08.2014, assessee preferred this appeal.
We find that DJ had admitted of issuing bogus bills.But, nowhere he had admitted that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. In our opinion, there is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party
When the CIT is satisfied with the reasons given by the Assessing Officer, he in not once again give separate reasons or repeat the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and then give his approval for the same.
