Tax Audit Report is a vital piece of evidence which goes to very root of matter and should be admitted for furtherance of cause of justice.
Reetesh Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Bench observed that both the lower authorities had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for want of non-appearance during the course of hearing. In view of the request of the ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO […]
We are of the view that proper service of notice is vital for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b). In this regard, we draw reliance in case of CIT vs. Har Parshad (1990) 49 Taxman 168 (P&H).
The Ld. AR has also submitted that the case for this year was picked up for scrutiny wherein the rental income has been assessed by AO as ‘business income’.
Every assessee has a right to appeal before the authorities against any addition or disallowance made to the returned income, at the same time, it is least expected that the assessee would comply to the notices issued by the authorities in an appropriate way.
Tribunal can only grant a stay subject to a deposit of not less than 20% of disputed demand, or furnishing of security thereof, it cannot be open to us to grant a stay in violation of these basic statutory provisions.
ITAT Bangalore held that levy of penalty u/s 271D, for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, is unwarranted as the loan was advanced by the Executive Directors to the company in cash to meet the urgent requirements of the company.
ITAT Chennai held that undisclosed income allegation unsustainable as during search no incriminating material was found in respect of on-money receipt and AO also failed to establish the receipt of the same.
ITAT Kolkata held that the transaction of purchase of old gold jewellery in exchange of sale of new jewellery is covered under rule 6DD (d) and hence exempted from the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. Further, there is no violation of provisions of section 40A(3) as there is no actual transaction of payment of cash.
The ITAT in the case of Transfer Pricing observed that the exclusion and inclusion of comparable companies could be determined on basis of the Judgments of Yahoo Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 115 taxmann.com 60 (Bang Trib) and Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. (IT(TP)A No. 2355/Bang/2019. Also while dealing with the issue of capitalisation of software expenses it was held that “period of license” cannot be considered but the kind of software “system software or application software” shall be taken into consideration.
