As the turnover of the assessee was less than the prescribed limit fixed for tax audit, provisions of Section 44AB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. When the provisions of Section 44 AB of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case, levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Act does not arise.
Vineet Sethi Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has been terminated vide letter issued by TBM Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. dated 23.2.2016 due to misconduct of the assessee, wherein it was alleged that assessee has been indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the interest of the employer company and assessee was promoting and carrying […]
Shanthi R. Pai Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) AO made addition of Rs.26,79,000/- on account of cash deposits. Assesee stated that she is a home maker & her husband was employed overseas as Chartered Accountant serving overseas from 1975 to 2008. He used to send money from abroad and also invested in Term Deposits in India […]
Maranaikana Halli Jayashella Shetty Pradeepkumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) 271B Penalty- When the Assessee Has Not Maintained the Books of Account, There Is No Question of Getting the Books of Account Audited U/S 44AB Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) making additions to the returned income u/s 44AD. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271A & 271B. […]
ITAT Bangalore held that charging the income tax on the entire gross receipts without giving effect of the expenditures incurred by the assessee towards earning of the income.
ITAT Bangalore held that no exemption has been claimed by the assessee in the preceding year as application of income on the purchase of fixed assets. Accordingly, addition doesnot survive.
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied when explanation given by the assesse constitutes a reasonable cause. Accordingly, concluded that bonafide business transaction cannot be considered for levying the penalty u/s 271D of the Act.
CESTAT Bangalore held that amount taxed in the hands of partner u/s 28(v) needs to be allowed in the hands of the firm u/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Assessee filed ROI claiming relief u/s 90 but did not file Form No.67. Form was subsequently filed beyond the due date as per under Rule. CPC did not give credit for foreign tax.
ITAT Bangalore held that as software is procured from somewhere else and allotted to ground companies including the assesse, such cost allocated without any markup is reimbursement of expense and the same is not liable for TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act.
