Follow Us:

All ITAT

TDS U/s. 194H not deductible on bank guarantee commission

December 6, 2017 5604 Views 0 comment Print

When the bank issues a bank guarantee on behalf of the assessee, all it does is to accept the commitment of making payment of a specified amount to the beneficiary on demand and it is in consideration of this commitment that the bank charges of fee which is termed as ‘bank guarantee commission’

Payments made towards making copies of films- TDS U/s. 194C or 194J?

December 6, 2017 10215 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs. Yash Raj Films (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In this case stand of assessee has been that assessee company had deducted TDS on the negative processing charges paid to Kodak India Ltd. as per the provisions of section 194J of the Act, as the negative processing involves specific tasks of editing, enhancement of quality […]

Addition U/s. 69 justified if assessee cannot furnish any explanation regarding source of receipt of money

December 6, 2017 1080 Views 0 comment Print

Where assessee could not furnish any explanation regarding source of receipt of money, except saying that it was loan borrowed from parties, the addition made by the AO under section 69 was justified.

Approval u/s 80G(5) cannot be denied at initial stages for not undertaking any activity or Substantial Activity

December 6, 2017 2154 Views 0 comment Print

Mattapalli Chalamayya Charitable Trust Visakhapatnam Vs CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) If the activities of the trust are genuine, at the stage of commencement of institution, registration has to be granted automatically and claim u/s 80G of the Act can be followed with grant of registration. Ld. Commissioner (Exemptions) did not reject the request of the assessee […]

Penalty not justified on disallowance on certain issue being subject matter of judicial interpretation in number of case

December 5, 2017 1293 Views 0 comment Print

In our view, the issue relating to the assessees claim of deduction under section 54F, is debatable in nature. Merely because the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, agreed for disallowance of its claim for deduction under section 54F, will not lead to a conclusion that the assessee has either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of his income. That being the case, in our view, it is not a fit cause for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).

Assumption of jurisdiction U/s. 153C is invalid if seized documents makes no reference of assessee or any transaction by him

December 5, 2017 2205 Views 0 comment Print

Assumption of jurisdiction over assessee under section 153C on the basis of statement of searched person, however, seized documents making no reference of either the assessee or any transaction entered into by it, was highly misplaced and, therefore, set aside.

No Penalty on Income disclosed during survey and also in return filed U/s. 153A

December 5, 2017 4101 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, the fact that the entire ‘undisclosed income’ was declared by the appellant in the statement recorded during search and the same was also disclosed in the return filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A, clearly goes to show the bona fides of the appellant, not warranting imposition of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act.

Penalty not leviable for mere disallowance of claim made by Assessee

December 5, 2017 4026 Views 0 comment Print

M/s. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The bona fide error or bonafide claim constitutes valid defence against the charge of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars […]

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) not justified based on mere high stamp duty valuation of property

December 4, 2017 5196 Views 0 comment Print

Where assessee had offered actual amount received on sale of property for taxation, revenue authorities were not justified in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property

Withdrawal of Appeal cannot be denied except when appellant obtained some advantage which he seeks to retain

December 4, 2017 2130 Views 0 comment Print

It is now well settled that a petitioner / plaintiff is the dominus litis and it is open to him to pursue or abandon his case. Withdrawal cannot be denied except when the person making the prayer has obtained some advantage / benefit, which he seeks to retain.

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930