Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- In our considered opinion, the stand taken by the assessee at the time of filing of return of income was a possible and plausible view and therefore, the penalty is not justified. The judgement of Honourable Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 158 also supports the case of the assessee because in that case, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that mere making of a claim by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return of income cannot amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless it is found that any details supplied by the assessee in this return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. In our considered opinion, this judgement of Honourable Apex Court supports the case of the assessee in the present case and respectfully following this judgement, we delete the penalty.
DCIT Vs Summit Securities Limited (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench)- Notwithstanding the fact that the substantial question of law raised in the order of the earlier Bench has been admitted by the Honourable High Court, there are no fetters on the Tribunal in hearing the case in Special Bench and rendering the decision which would prevail upon and become a binding precedent for the other Benches of the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee could not point out even a single judgment in which the Honourable High Court abstained the Tribunal from deciding the issue through Special bench during the pendency of appeal before it. With utmost humility there cannot be such a decision for the manifest reason that the justice delivery system has to take its own course and cannot wait in eternity for a higher judicial body to decide the issue first.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Sumer Ville Investments (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the notional interest on interest-free deposit from tenants is to be considered while determining the correct ALV u/s 23(1)(a)
Sanjay S. Shah Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The fact that the assessee got credit of TDS u/s 154 proceedings in fact goes against the assessee. When the assessee received TDS in respect of some FDRs, and not in respect of other FDRs as claimed by him, he should have obtained the duplicate certificates and should have filed them with the return of income showing total interest received by him. Instead, he chose not to show the interest income to the extent of Rs.2,11,172/-.
M.L. Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The notification issued by the CBDT at Serial No. 8, mentions “human resource services” as a notified service eligible for deduction u/s 10A. It was also observed that the Assessee is just processing the potentiality of candidates employable by any software development company and the customised data is prepared for the US Company.
ACIT Vs S.K.M. Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Land which forms part of investment in balance sheets is capital asset and hence profit derived from it is taxable under the head capital gain. Mere presence of profit motive not enough to decide the head of income.
Earth Castle Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Imposition of penalty under s 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the assessee is unable to substantiate an explanation in relation to the addition made by the AO in respect of the undisclosed income found during the search and also did not file appeal against the addition.
DCIT Vs Tata Investment Corporation Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- All income cannot be taxed, but only those incomes on which the taxpayer has a legitimate and enforceable right is liable to tax, the ITAT held. According to ITAT order, taxmen do not have the right to tax any receipts as the law is well settled that all receipts are not income, only those receipts with the character of income can be assessed to tax. The ITAT held that income can be considered “accrued” only when the taxpayer has a right to receive the income. Without a legally enforceable right, there cannot be an accrual of income.
Beejay Security & Finance Ltd v ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Satisfaction is required to be arrived at by the AO of the person who was searched under s 132 of the Act regarding any undisclosed income of the person who was not subjected to a search to hand over the seized material to the AO of the person to whom the seized documents belongs or is alleged to belong. The satisfaction required for proceedings under s 153C cannot be reduced to a mere formality of forwarding the documents found in the course of the search, which did not belong to the person searched, and which belonged to the person against whom proceedings under s 153C were sought to be initiated.
ACIT, New Delhi Vs Indian Farmer Fertilisers Co- op Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- From the tax audit report, we also find that amount of Rs. 13,03,74,047/- has been shown as paid on or before due date for furnishing return of income for the previous year u/s 139(1) of the Act. Form 3CD has been prepared and signed by Rajnish & Associates, CA.
