Examining the present case on the anvil of aforesaid case law, we find that the notice in this also is an omnibus show-cause notice as it does not strike off/delete the inappropriate/irrelevant/not applicable portion. Such a generic notice betrays a non-application of mind. Hence, the penalty levied pursuant to such a notice is not legally sustainable in law.
Yashovardhan Birla Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, in its order has examined the definition of ‘undisclosed asset’ in the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Impositions of Tax Act (BML Act) and held that the assets which constitute part of income tax proceedings and have been […]
Niho Construction Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee claimed 100% Depreciation on Mobile Phones, each of which cost less than Rs. 5,000/-. But Assessing Officer (AO) restricted the depreciation to 15%, treating them general plant & Machinery. Assessee approached ITAT and AO argued that List of items on which 100% depreciation is allowed is specifically […]
Rangbahar Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) In this case CIT (Commissioner of Income tax), disallowed depreciation on mobiles, as the assessee has not provided ‘the place of installation’ of Mobile Phones. Vide para 18 of the Revision Order of the CIT was of the opinion that the assessee has not provided “the place […]
Barring private equity partners (India) private limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) If the Assessee select the option to received Interest on Non-Convertible Debenture at maturity but showing yearly interest in P/L account but offered to tax at the Maturity then AO cannot raise objection. The assessee had subscribed to 7500 NCDs of Rs. 1,000/- each […]
DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi TMT Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Pune) AO found that the assessee company was established dated 10 August 2004 i.e. during the financial year 2004-05 corresponding to the assessment year 2005-06 and it did not carry out any business activity till the year under consideration. Conversely, it has issued shares at a premium of […]
Sanjay Matai Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) From perusal of record, we observed that Section 254 of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 states about power to admit additional evidences, whether mere fact that evidence sought to be produced is vital and important does not provide a substantial […]
Mohan Lal Vs JCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Magistrate had convicted the assessee on the complaint filed U/s 138 of the N.I. Act by Shri Aditya Kumar Sharma but that does not ipso facto mean that assessee has taken or accepted any loan or deposit or any specified sum in cash from the said Aditya Kumar Sharma. […]
Penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) could not be imposed merely for the delay in filing Quarterly TDS Statement as the entire tax along with interest thereon had been deposited in to Govt. account and later, assessee filed quarterly TDS returns for all the quarters and Revenue had not suffered any loss because tax deducted was already deposited on time and there was mere technical or venial breach to provisions contained in Act for submitting return/statements of TDS.
Indian Geotechnical Services Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Deduction on payment of employees contribution towards PF/ESI made before the due date of filing Income Tax Return under section 139(1) was allowable as the amended provisions of section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) were not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. Held: Assessee raised the […]
