Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Since the specified persons possessed the requisite qualifications and rendered the services, therefore, it cannot be held that payment of salary to the specified persons was unreasonable particularly when no comparable case was cited by AO. Therefore, the exemption could not be denied under section 13(1)(c). Held: […]
Notice issued by AO was bad in law since it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income and merely because AO had treated the business loss claimed by assessee as speculation loss, the same could not tantamount to concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
The allegation of AO that the opening stock of assessee was an unexplained income of the assessee as such stock in trade was not in existence seem to be unsustainable because why a person would show and on accounted opening stock of the magnitude of ₹ 51,000,000 just to on a meager net profit of ₹ 875,000/–.
Payments were made to various state government departments for delay in submission of form or document or compliance with the procedures, in which case, the payment was not for violation of law but compensation for not complying with law and was allowable expenditure as normal business expenditure u/s 37(1).
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) With respect to the TP adjustment to the export commission, which is claimed by the assessee that it is intrinsically, looked that the main activity of manufacturing and sale of products and as such could not be identified separately for benchmarking. It is also […]
Shree Lakadipool Vitthal Mandir Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Pune) In the present case, the objects of the trust are not doubted by the Department and they have also not disputed the charitable nature of the activities conducted by the assessee trust. Meaning thereby, all the relevant records were submitted before the Ld. CIT(Exemption) and he […]
Simar Kaur Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) It is seen that the assessee has consistently maintained its challenge that notice was not issued as it has not been served. The tax authorities have rejected the challenge holding that non-receipt is not equivalent to non-service. It is seen that though the challenge is recorded the wording in […]
Duggal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) From the reasons it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not specific as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the tune of 1 crore has escaped assessment. In fact, in one para […]
Galaxy Surfactants Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Once an Assessing Officer prepares a draft assessment order, that is the end of his domain of powers so far as framing of assessment is concerned- unless of course there are any directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel which are required to be implemented by the Assessing Officer. […]
DLF Universal Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld AO has applied 0.5% of investment of Rs. 53.51 crores whereas the ld CIT(A) restricting 0.5% only Rs. 30.84 holding that balance investment of approximately Rs. 22 crores was made in the subsidiary companies and there was no intention of earning any dividend income. The ld CIT(A) […]
