Whether the penalty levied by CIT(A) u/s 272A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in law? Penalty u/s 272A is not justified for Assessee having exempt income u/s 10(23C).
Where amount received by assessee in excess of advance was on account of compensation for extinction of its right to sue the owner, the receipt was a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
Assessee was in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property was not the exclusive business of assessee, therefore, the rental income earned by assessee was rightly treated as income under the head ‘House Property’ instead of ‘business income’.
Assessee had developed shopping mall on a property owned by it and by providing host of services/facilities amenities in the said mall and as such, basic intention of assessee was commercial exploitation of its property by developing it as shopping malls, therefore, income earned by assessee from letting out various shops/stalls in shopping malls constructed by it had to be treated as business income and not as income from house property.
Expenses on medical camps organized with tea and snacks, ball pens, purchased for distribution to Doctors and Hospitals, with logo of the assessee company, organizing cardiac camps, Doctors meetings for various products for awareness of their product were only on account of business promotion expenses which were allowable under the provisions of section 37 the I.T. Act.
Assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be held as bogus on the ground of information from Investigation Wing in case assessee had filed evidences like transaction statement of stock broker, contract notes transactions statement of Demat acount, statement of account from brokers, and bank statement, etc., to prove genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares.
Amount paid to foreign lawyer by assessee for representing its case before foreign court was not taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) in India as legal services could not be treated as FTS as it was a professional services which was outside the scope of Section 9(1)(vii).
Where there was an option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the ‘NAV Method’, AO had no jurisdiction to discard the valuation report of the CA mainly on the ground that valuation of equity shares carried out by assessee was based on projection of revenue which did not match with the actual revenues of the subsequent years. Moreover, top and independent investors had invested in assessee’s start-up proved that the FMV as determined by assessee was proper.
While on search nothing adverse was found so as to prove that documents filed during original assessment proceedings were false or untrue, AO on same set of material could not take a different view than already taken at the time of original assessment merely because a search had taken place.
Where TPO was not convinced with the benchmarking of international transaction of assessee, he should have independently benchmarked the arm’s length price of royalty payment by adopting any one of the prescribed methods which he had failed to do and determined arm’s length price at nil on purely ad–hoc basis without assigning any valid and acceptable reason, therefore, the addition made on account of adjustment made to the arm’s length price of royalty payment was to be deleted.
