The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Shri E. Krishnappa vs. ITO held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without mentioning its basis i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars or both would make the proceedings illegal because AO’s satisfaction of the existence
Common appeal is raised by the assessee against the order of CIT relating to assessment year 2001-02 & 2005-06, therein CIT by virtue of Sec 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961(ACT) ordered assessing officer to make fresh assessment for said asstt year
In the case of DCIT Vs. Deepak Chaudhary Kolkata Bench of ITAT have held that the assessee has cumulatively satisfied all the conditions stipulated in Clause 2 of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)( c) of the Act and hence entitled for immunity from levy of penalty for all the assessment years under appeal.
M/s Nikon India (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the light of various case laws & on bare reading of the provision prescribed in Act: ITAT held that as AMP is an international Transaction and TPO is having jurisdiction over it even without any reference is made by A.O.
ITAT Delhi in DCIT Vs Deepsons Southend held that if there is change in the profit sharing ratio of the partnership and all the partners remain same in the new partnership deed then that would not be change in the constitution of the firm so the loss of the firm could be carried forward.
ITAT New Delhi held in ACIT Vs Phonix Lamps India Ltd that if the assessee was selling its final product to particular parties continuously and there was no return of the final product. Moreover there was no complaint of any defect in the finished product.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of J.P MORGAN SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. ITO held that ‘benefits of enduring nature’ is not the sole factor to categorise an expense as capital expense. Expenditure for improving “operational efficiency” regarding Project Management Study will be considered as Revenue in Nature.
In the case of M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. ITO Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act and, therefore, could not have been added back to the book profits under Section 115JB.
In the case of ITO Vs. M/S JAGDAMBA OPTICS PVT. LTD. Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that there was existence of correct information which prompted to the AO to proceed to issue notice u/s. 148 of and hence, the reassessment proceedings could not be declared as null and void.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of ITO vs. Ms. Khalil M. Bharwani that the whole transaction of purchase and sale of shares giving rise to long term capital gain has been duly explained step by step and supported by adequate and reliable evidence.
