Whether CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 221(1) by the AO on the ground that assessee has paid the self assessment after the date of filling of return of income?
Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission Vs ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) Passing ex-parte order when assessee could not attend the proceedings due to lockdown is not justified in law. Since Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide letter dated 24th March, 2020 had issued directions for stopping of the work of all offices for […]
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in levying penalty u/s 271C of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source on Leave Travel Allowance?
It is noted that the assessee is into the business of truck plying in North-East States and it is common knowledge that the drivers and cleaners before they start their journey on their trucks conduct puja of the God they believe and they incur expenses for buying garlands, bhog etc. for safe and smooth running of the vehicle while they go to the pre-destined location which are located in the remote areas of Assam, Meghalaya and Mizoram to deliver/collect goods. The expenses thus it is noted are incurred by the assessee for puja is for the smooth functioning of the business of transport as discussed cannot be disallowed.
Paramount Impex Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) we are not in agreement with the Revenue that the non maintenance of stock register was sufficient for exercising the power of rejecting the books of the assessee. It is not unusual for businesses dealing in large number of small items and operating at a small or medium scale […]
Whether the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 initiated by AO is justified in law? Re-opening of assessment on basis of Internal Audit Objection Not Justified.
Merely because a prescribed Form No. 3CEB was filed in accordance with Rule 10E r.w.s. 92BA of the Act would not make an assessee susceptible to onerous investigation proceedings on such transactions where the assessee prima facie demonstrates that Section 92BA of the Act is wholly inapplicable in any manner at the first instance
whether the assessee has to deduct tax at source at the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case the payees are unable to furnish their PANs, even if tax liability arises out of the treaty?
Whether the AO was correct in denying the exemption u/s 11 to the assessee against Purchase of Land and FLAT in preparation to establishing a university and not in the nature of any ‘real estate’ operation ?
Whether the interest u/s 234B for less payment of advance tax will be levied on account of additions made to total income, consequent to retrospective amendment?
