Chandrakant H. Shah v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In a first-of-its-kind judgement, the ITAT Mumbai recently ruled that a recipient of an interest-free loan from a non-relative is not liable to pay tax. The judgement will come as a major relief for people who borrow money from friends and colleagues and latter grapple with notices from tax authorities.
7. Under section 12AA1(a) of the Act, the CIT is empowered to call for information to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of trust /institution. The Commissioner may make such enquiries as he thinks fit for the purpose. Under section 12AA1(b) of the Act, after having satisfied about the objects of Trust/institution and genuineness of its activities,
19. One of the things which is clearly discernable from the facts of this case is that so far as the year before us is concerned, which was incidentally first full year of assessee’s operations, the import content of the raw materials was as high at 98.95%. This is materially different from the import content of the raw material in the cases of the comparables selected by the revenue authorities.
23. After careful consideration of the above circular it is clear that the contract for the sale of goods will not be covered within the ambit of sec. 194 C. In the present case we find that the assessee placed orders with the manufacturers for manufacturing of the medicines strictly according to its specifications but the property in such goods passed to the assessee only after these were delivered to him
8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. A great deal of emphasis had been laid by he Id. DR on the fact that since the addition has been upheld by the tribunal, then the penalty should also be confirmed. In our considered opinion the mere fact of confirmation of addition cannot per se lead to the confirmation of the penalty
9. From the rival positions of both the parties as well as the provisions of section 41(1) and the legal propositions of various judicial fora, the following issues have emerged. They are: (a) the issue of limitation of period of three years; (b) the issue of discharge of onus, when the assessee has not unilaterally written them off; (c) the issue of unilateral write off for the assessments of the post amendment period i.e. 1.4.1997
In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We therefore, delete the penalty.
In respect of AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed by a revised return that the loss suffered in respect of one s. 10A unit was not liable to be set-off against the profits of another s. 10A unit. The AO rejected the claim and the assessee accepted the decision of the AO. On the question whether the assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, especially in the light
. There is no dispute or dis-agreement regarding the nature of transactions entered into between the assessee and its distributors. The assessee company, by virtue of the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, is engaged in providing Mobile telephone services to the public at large. The Govt, of India s allotting the licence to various parties in the field on the basis of geographical specifications.
25. There is no dispute or dis-agreement regarding the nature of transactions entered into between the assessee and its distributors. The assessee company, by virtue of the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, is engaged in providing Mobile telephone services to the public at large. The Govt, of India s allotting the licence
