ITAT Chennai held in the case of DCIT vs M/s. Sri Balasubramania Mills Ltd. that the section 148 could only be invoked whenever there is a failure on the side of Assessee to furnish all the necessary details. But, in this case the details were furnished as relevant sale deed was available with the AO
The assessee received revenue on account of the contract entered into with ONGC for providing services of seismic survey to the data correction supervision for the purpose of hydrocarbon reservoir exploitation, possible leak point identification and core site selection from available 2D and 3D seismic data, core acquisition with USBL System, sample processing, prevention and transportation, laboratories analysis and interpretation and report.
Medravathi Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is observed that the assessee company as well as other thirteen land owning companies were incorporated with their main object to carry on the agricultural activities and there is no dispute about the same. In order to pursue this main objects, these companies purchased agricultural […]
The statement recorded by an officer on oath will be used as evidence in any proceeding, whereas statement recorded u/s. 133A has not given any evidentiary value because it was recorded by the authority, which has not been empowered to administer the oath to the assessee and take sworn statement.
We have considered the rival submissions carefully and perused the order of the AO and the CIT(A). In this case of the assessee original assessment was framed in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter the completed assessment was sought to be reopened by the AO by issuance of the notice u/s 148 on the assessee on basis of reopening
Annam Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITAT Chennai) Assesse, an EOU, filed its return claiming exemption u/s 10 B. A.O. rejected assesse’s claim. In appellate proceedings , assesse raised a plea that in relevant year it had claimed deduction u/s 10 A
The MAT provisions were introduced in statute by the Finance Bill, 1996 and the Finance Minister while introducing this provision observed that the company engaged in the power and infrastructure sector will remain exempt from the levy of MAT.
Since basis for visiting assessee with penalty has been extinguished by quashing assessment order itself by Tribunal in appeal of assessee, impugned penalty imposed further had no leg to stand.
In view of the categorical finding of the Hon’ble Suprreme Court that the goodwill also falls under the expression ‘any other business or commercial right of a similar nature’and thus would be an asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act, we accordingly hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation on goodwill.
Where assessee surrendered unexplained income voluntarily even after receiving notice u/s 143(2) and the AO had not brought any evidence on record to prove that there was concealment of income, whether levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified.
