As per the nature of business of the assessee, certain procedural non-compliance are not unusual, for which assessee is required to pay some fines or penalties. In our considered view, these routine fines or penalties are compensatory in nature; these are not punitive.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of M/s. Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that setting up of business’ and ‘commencement of business’ may be too different and independent events. For the purpose of deductibility of the business expenses, the reference point would be initial setting up of the business.
In the present case, the assessee had filed an application with National Housing Bank on 23.12.2004 and submitted along with this application Cheque No.669766 dated 23.12.2004. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ACIT vs. Rupam Impex that the AO has justified the mistake on record on the ground that it is attributed to the assessee. The income tax proceedings are not adversarial proceedings.
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case held that investment in share capital of a subsidiary being an international transaction on capital account does not result in income as defined under section 2(24) of the Act, the Transfer Pricing provisions a would not be applicable to such transaction. Further, in the absence of thin capitalization rules, re-characterization of debt capital into equity or vice versa not allowed.
The brokerage paid to the third party has nothing to do with the rental income paid by the tenant for enjoying the property to the owner therefore brokerage cannot be said to be a charge that has been created in the property for enjoying the rights and at best it is only an application of income received/receivable from rent
ITAT Mumbai held in the case DCIT vs. M/s. ACC Ltd. held that AO is duty bound to follow instruction of The CIT (A) being very senior officer of the Department who also also performs quasi judicial functions. The AO has all the rights to challenge the order of the CIT (A) before the appropriate judicial forum, but he is not authorized to disobey the directions given by the CIT (A).
ITAT Mumbai held in the case ITO vs. Smt. Sudha Brijratan Damani that in the case of CIT v. P.S. Jain & Co. (2011) 335 ITR 591, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that by passage of time, money value has gone down, the cost of litigation expenses has gone up, the assessees on the file of the Departments
Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found
ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT that a plain reading of Sec.80-IC (8)(v) which defines the term initial assessment year read with Sec.80-IC(8)(ix) which defines the term substantial expansion makes it clear that there is no restriction on more than one substantial expansion being undertaken by an assessee.
