condition precedent for proceeding under section 147/148 of the Act was that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court further held, The notice under section 147/148 issued to the petitioner was not vitiated merely for the reason that notice under section 143(2) had not been issued to it.
In the present case, we are dealing with a situation in which payment has been made to a non-resident taxpayer but the said non-resident taxpayer has taken into account the receipts in question in his business income and has already filed his income tax return under section 139(1)
Issue -During the course of search certain valuables including jewellery was found and the assessee has filed detailed explanation regarding the source of acquisition of jewellery. The assessee has explained that out of the jewellery found, some part belongs to the wife of the assessee
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax in his notice u/s 263 dated 18.3.2014 stated that prima facie deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee is not justifiable on the following grounds :- 1. Assessee is assembling and trading LCDs and it is not carrying on manufacturing of goods.
Hon’ble Chennai ITAT has in the case of SAE India v/s DIT(E) has held that if the objects and activities of the trust are genuine than registration cannot be cancelled merely because receipts are exceeding threshold limit as provided under second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act.
In this case the Assessee was a Public Sector undertaking and had omitted to add back Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts. During the Assessment the mistake was noticed and the claim was conceded and disallowance of provision was made.
Share Application Money or deposit in the current account cannot be included in the definition of deposit so as to trigger provisions of sec 269SS of the Income Tax Act,1961. Brief facts of the case were that the assessee company was in the business of construct ion of the hotel.
Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Pradeep G. Vora v/s ITO has dealt in depth about the power of the tribunal to admit new additional ground and has held that tribunal Cannot be Precluded from handling any point (facts or law) which pertains to the assessment even if it is raised for the first time before it and was not raised before the authorithies below by observing as under:-
The Assessing Officer has though power to re–assess but no power to review and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, then in the garb of the re–assessment, review of earlier orders would take place.
It is clear that the assessee may be under the bonafide belief that TDS is not liable to be deducted on payments made to non-banking financial institution. Section 273B of the Income Tax Act provides that no penalty under section 271C shall be imposable on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.
