A issue being a debatable issue at the point of time when the assessee filed its return of income penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on that count cannot be sustained, mere fact that the addition has been made or confirmed does not per se lead to imposition of penalty
If a particular accounting system has been followed and accepted and there is no acceptable reason to differ with it, the doctrine of consistency would come into play; the method of accounting cannot be rejected.
Production loss depends on number of factors and in absence of any comparable to show that loss shown by the assessee is excessive, the contention of the assessee has to be accepted
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) – 19, Kolkata dated 05.03.2014 and in the solitary ground raised therein, the revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in cancelling the assessment made by the A.O. under section 143(3) / 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding the same to be invalid.
In view of CIT v. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 47 (Delhi), batteries which were used along with UPS and which formed a system for power back up in case of power failure qualified for depreciation at 60 per cent.
M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that evidences which have been furnished by the assessee have not been discussed; and if the Director has not been found then it cannot be said that identity of the company is not established especially in wake of income tax records and share allotment […]
Aristo Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is not in dispute that the assessee had maintained separate books of accounts for trading activity and manufacturing activity. We find that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IE of the Act only in respect of profits derived from manufacturing activity only. It is not in dispute that […]
Addition under section 68 of share application money received by assessee on the reason that summons issued under section 131 to the directors of the investment company for verification returned unserved was unjustified as assessee had substantiated share capital received by it by furnishing relevant details and no onus was cast on the assessee during relevant assessment year to produce the persons or the books from investment companies.
The appellant contented that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed by the AO if he is satisfied that any person failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice issued under section 148.
Macquarie Global Services Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Once the claim of deduction u/s 10AA has been accepted in the first year of the operations and also in the second year, then in the third year same cannot be withdrawn by examining the factors which were required to be seen in the first year of the […]
