Held that the mistake in not adding back the loss on sale of fixed assets in computation of income was a bona fide mistake inadvertently. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not imposed.
Held that late fee u/s 234E for delayed filing of return of TDS not leviable while processing a return of TDS for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015.
DCIT Vs Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Coordinate bench in the case of in the case of Orbit Corp Ltd. in ITA No. 2979 to 2981 /Mum/2020 , has held that the resolution professional was required to amend Form No. 36A for further prosecuting the appeal and in absence of which appeals were […]
Assessee firm has obtained loans from the sister concern on commercial basis. On facts it has emerged that the lender company has charged interest on advances made to assessee firm. The assessee has taken plea that the advances made by the lender company to the borrower assessee firm is not a loan/advance but is beset with the character of quid pro quo owing to charge of interest for the benefit of lender company.
Gayatri Projects Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) A reading of provisions under section 13 and 14 of IBC Code along with decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, clearly shows that once the proceedings have commenced by institution of application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the Code, the continuance of the pending proceedings […]
In this case, AO pass order levying penalty amounting to Rs.6,62,100/- u/s 271C of Income Tax Act (being 2% of the EDC amount paid to HUDA).
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Under section 13 of the Code, the adjudicating authority after admission of the application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the IBC Code shall declare a moratorium which shall include the prohibition of the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against […]
Assessee deserves one more opportunity to reconcile difference between contract receipts as shown in return of income & Form No. 26AS -ITAT
2 different yardsticks for same set of sale transaction made by co-owners not allowed. Assessee cannot be treated differently for similar transaction
Penalty charged levied by SEBI related to shortfall in margin money is not for infraction of any law. hence allowable under section 37
