Tribunal has held that in case the income is to be computed as per sub-section (1A) of section 11 of the Act, if the net consideration for transfer of capital asset of a charitable trust is utilized for acquiring new capital asset, then the whole of the capital gain is exempt.
In absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect that repayment of loans/ deposit was not under a bonafide transaction and was made with a view to evade tax, the cause shown by the assessee was a reasonable cause and in the view of section 273B no penalty could be imposed.
The pre-payment discount given by the taxpayer cannot be equated to quantity discount since quantity discount is reduction in sale price. The pre-payment discount was effectively in the nature of interest because it was in consideration of the taxpayer receiving advance payment and to compensate the buyer for making the payment in advance before the sale of goods.
The ITAT Panaji in the case of ACIT Vs. Karishma Global Mineral Pvt. Ltd. held that the sales commission paid by assessee to Singapore based entity is not taxable in India as the same is business profits which cannot be taxed in the hands of foreign company under India
We are in disagreement with the revenue’s argument that GMDAT should not be selected as a ‘tested party’ as the comparable as the comparable companies selected by the assessee doesn’t fall within the ambit of TPO’s jurisdiction and, thus, he can neither call for any additional information nor scrutinize their books of accounts.
Navayuga Quazigund Expressway (P)Limited V/s. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad), It was contended on behalf of the assessee that interest under S.201(1A) was computed by the assessing officer by considering part of the calendar month as full month
In the instant case, undeniably the order under section 271FA was passed by the Director of Income-tax who is equivalent in rank with the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the order of the Director of Income-tax cannot be challenged or assailed by filing an appeal before an Officer,i.e., the Commissioner (Appeals), who is equivalent in rank with the Director of Income-tax. The appeal can only be filed before a higher forum than the forum whose order is to be challenged and the higher forum is only Tribunal and before it the order of the Director of Income-tax can only be challenged by filing an appeal.
As per record, we find that there was no notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act which is very much essential for reassessment and it is a failure on the part of the AO for not complying with the procedure laid down in section 143(2) of the I.T. Act.
Direct Stay Application filed before the Tribunal is maintainable and it is not the requirement of the law that assessee should necessarily approach the CIT before approaching the Tribunal for grant of stay.
Finding of the AO that in the absence of audit report, the enhanced claim is not maintainable over looks this factual position. It is undisputed that audit report for the enhanced claim had been furnished during the impugned 153A assessment proceedings along with Profit and Loss account and Balance sheet duly certified by the Accountant.
