Addition made by AO on account of profit allegedly earned by assessee on undisclosed turnover was directly related to the ground on which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. Since same being fall-out of the verification made by AO on issue, on which case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, there was no merit in contention raised by assessee that addition made by AO was beyond scope of limited scrutiny.
As per the prevailing legal position, the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee in India cannot come within the purview of international transaction. That being the case, the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot survive. Therefore, we do not find any necessity to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer.
whether section 50C can be invoked in respect of the right to receive compensation on compulsory acquisition of land & the TDR rights as the same would not come within the meaning of “immovable property”?
The issue under consideration is whether Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in the case where the assessee surrendered the income voluntarily during the course of the assessment?
DCIT Vs Bharath Fritz Werner Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) At the time of hearing it was not disputed that the issue raised by the revenue in its appeals are already decided by a Special Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad. The issue regarding the applicability of provisions of section 206AA of the Act, in cases of tax to […]
Shankar Lal Kumawat Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Section 271F penalty valid for not filing Return if Total Income before section 54 exemption exceeds maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax Section 139(1)(b) provides that every person, being a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income or the total income of any […]
The issue under consideration is whether the Ao is correct in levying penalty u/s 271C for failure to deduct tax at source u/s 194C on payment of external development work charges (EDC)?
the assessee requested an opportunity to explain the case and to submit all the necessary information & documents to the Assessing Officer since his counsel did not attended the decided hearings to solve the case.
The issue under consideration is whether the benefit of section 54 of the Income Tax Act, being a beneficial provision, can be denied to the assessee due to non-compliance of procedural requirements?
ITAT Mumbai: Anjana Sandeep Rathi vs. ACIT – Disputed LTCG on share sale. Violation of natural justice. Detailed analysis of the judgment and impact.
