There is hardly any dispute about the settled law that quantum and penalty proceedings are altogether different and each and every disallowance/addition made in the course of former proceedings does not ipso facto attract the latter penal action as per hon’ble apex decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC).
AO bound to demonstrate that the assessee has failed to disclose material facts fully and truly which has resulted in escapement of income. If he fails to demonstrate this aspect, then, in the case where scrutiny assessment has been made and four years have expired, he cannot take action under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
It is an admitted fact that provision for leave encashment has been made on the basis of actuarial valuation report. Relevant notes in this regard have also been given by the assessee in its annual financial statements.
This appeal of Revenue for Asst. Year 2009-10 is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad, dated 2nd July, 2012 vide appeal No.CIT(A)-XV/406/ITO-9(1 )/1 1-12 arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act), framed on 23/12/2011 by ITO, 9(1), Ahmedabad. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue
First ground of the assessee for claiming the deduction under section 80IB was that it had started production in Asstt.Year 2004-05. Asstt.Year 2006-07 is the third year. Deduction under section 80IB was granted in Asstt.Year 2005-06 in a scrutiny assessment.
ITAT held that when purchase and sale of shares were supported by proper contract notes , deliveries of shares were received through demat accounts maintained with various agencies, the shares were purchased and sold through recognized broker and the sale considerations were received by account payee cheques, the transactions cannot be treated as bogus and the income so disclosed was assessable as LTCG.
Assessment under section 153A can be made on the basis of incriminating material which in the context of relevant provisions means books of account and other documents found in the course of search but not produced in the course of original assessment and undisclosed income or property disclosed during the course of search.
AO held that it had entered into derivative transaction by swapping the loan, that the liability was paid in the subsequent year, that the notional loss of Rs.4.74 crores could not be allowed.
From the proviso, it is evident that where the tax payable in respect of the transfer of a long term capital asset in the case of a listed company exceeds 10% of the amount of the capital gain before giving effect to the provisions of second proviso to Section 48, then such excess shall be ignored for the purpose of computing the tax payable by the assessee.
In Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs. ACIT, the assessee had not deducted tax at source, AO treated the assessee as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and passed an order demanding tax of Rs. 4,27,910 and interest under section 201(1A) of Rs. 34,233.
