In a recent ruling, the Hyderabad ITAT ruled that non- enclosure of audit report to the return of income would not attract penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
In Shanders Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, the ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the expenditure incurred in relation to issuance of debentures as it constitute revenue expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The two beneficiaries were minors and therefore the assessing officer has arrived at an income of Rs. 3,65,040/- as income includable under section 64(1A) of the Act. As the income of the Trust depends on the claim of expenditure made by the co-owners, the working of assessing officer in the assessment order is fair and reasonable.
AO was not justified in making addition in the hands of assessee, without allowing the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi, whose statement was relied upon for making the above additions.
ITAT Hyderabad held in the case of Sai Prasanthi Realtors & Sai Eswar Real Estates & Developers v. Dy. CIT that if assessee has obtained audit report before due date, but did not enclose audit report along with return of income due to CBDT instructions in this regard then, imposition of penalty under section 271B […]
Medical illness and that to be in the nature of the typhoid fever and UTI is definitely reasonable cause for non- appearing on the date and therefore, we are of the opinion that no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(b) in such circumstances as the same is covered under exception of ‘reasonable cause’ as enshrined in section 273B.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – III, Jaipur dated 19.02.2016 for A.Y. 2011- 12 wherein the assessee has challenged the levy penalty of Rs. 1,02,400/- u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act.
In the present case, the assessee has been able to prove identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Therefore, the authorities below should not have made or confirmed the addition of Rs. 5.75 crores in the hands of the assessee.
In absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen already concluded assessment. It was further held that since there was no whisper in reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to possession of AO subsequent to issue of intimation, therefore, it was an arbitrary exercise of power conferred u/s 147.
In a major relief to the Ernst & Young Pvt Ltd (EY), the Kolkata bench of the ITAT confirmed the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing deduction under sections 10A and 10AA of the Income Tax Act to the Company without set off of loss of taxable unit.
