S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied
Commissioner has invoked its powers under Section 12(AA)(3) of the Act. The said powers are circumscribed by the limitations imposed under Sub Section 3 of Section 12AA of the Act. The Commissioner, nowhere has given the finding that the activities of the Respondent institution are not genuine one or that the said activity carried out are not in consonance with the object of the institution.
The present Appeal pertains to Assessment year 200405. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Tribunal was not justified in not accepting the reworking of the book profits by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass […]
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the department has taken a policy decision not to prosecute the appeals wherein the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs.
The Tribunal considered the merits and once again, at great length. The particular argument revolving around the statement of Dilip Dherai and his answer to question No. 24 was also considered in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. Then, in paragraph 22, the Tribunal refers to the additions made under Section 69C.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges the order date 23.4.2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (Tribunal) relating to Assessment Year 1995- 96.
The balance sheet and profit and loss account of these persons discloses that these persons had sufficient funds in their accounts for investing in the shares of the Assessee. In view of these voluminous documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the Assessee.
Petitioner cannot urge and/or seek directions to the respondents to postpone the decision to implement GST with effect from 1.7.2017, for simple reason that herein levy and collection of taxes on goods and services has sanction of law.
Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prescribes penalty according to its provisions when an assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax.
