The ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Rattha Citadines held that relying on the same information as available on the date of filing original return of income in filling revised return but making a different claim , in the absence of assessee’s bonafide expenditure would be deemed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income making assessee liable to face penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
ITAT Pune held in the case The ACIT vs. M/s. Ambarwadikar & Co., Engineers & Contractors that It is clear that the bill raised by the assessee has been accepted by the department and for whatever reason some amount was not paid during F.Y. 2001-02 but the fact remains that there is no such dispute as claimed by the assessee.
The transaction of allowing credit period to the AE on realization of sale proceeds is not an independent transaction and has to be considered along with the main international transaction of sale of goods.
In the impugned year the blood relation is not necessary for the gift to be a genuine gift, but the relationship matters a lot. In all the probabilities the gift is found to be genuine as the donors have explained the source of gift, copy of bank accounts, income tax return.
The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Assessee and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. MKJ Enterprises which held that factoring charges were not interest and as such, provisions of TDS are not applicable.
The assessee is a dealer of sarees and AO while framing the assessment disallowed karigar /embroidery charges by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the Act.
The Assessing Officer while computing the total wealth of the assessee added the value of the let-out properties i.e. godown and offices in the total wealth of the assessee for the purpose of calculating the wealth-tax.
The assessee company was engaged in the business of real estate development. Vide order of Hon’ble High Court, 19 Group companies engaged in similar business were merged in the assessee company w.e.f 01.04.1999.
It is an admitted fact, in the present case that the Department has failed to supply the assessee the copy of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The condition precedent for exercising the revisional power under section 263 of the Act is that the order under revision should not only be erroneous, but such erroneous order should result in prejudice to the interests of the Revenue.
