Assessee firm has obtained loans from the sister concern on commercial basis. On facts it has emerged that the lender company has charged interest on advances made to assessee firm. The assessee has taken plea that the advances made by the lender company to the borrower assessee firm is not a loan/advance but is beset with the character of quid pro quo owing to charge of interest for the benefit of lender company.
In this case, AO pass order levying penalty amounting to Rs.6,62,100/- u/s 271C of Income Tax Act (being 2% of the EDC amount paid to HUDA).
Assessee has not received advisory notice issued u/s 285 BA (5) and the show cause notice of penalty u/s 271FA due to change of mail id and further contended that, the delay in filing the return was not deliberate.
Held that deduction from income claimed for payment made to a retired partners allowable as it amount to a diversion of income at source by overriding title.
Held that expenditure incurred in executing the project is an intangible asset which is eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act
ACIT Vs Genus Electrotech Limited (ITAT Delhi) Held that sales tax incentive subsidy and excise duty incentive are in the nature of capital receipts and thus not chargeable to tax as regular income as well as income u/s 115JB for computation of book profit. Facts- In the order u/s 154, AO noted that assessee had […]
Held that assessee established identity of the creditors by bringing on record their PANs and complete addresses of the creditors. Hence addition u/s 68, without bringing out any adverse or cogent material to dispute the credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, is unsustainable
Merely because a capital receipt is utilized for incurring revenue expenditure it will not change the nature of capital receipt into a revenue item.
Held that notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) needs to specify the limb under which penalty proceedings are initiated. Penalty not leviable, in absence of the specification of the limb.
Held that as the assessee has already abandoned its statutory right of filing an appeals and has consciously taken decision. Therefore, delay of more than 10 years cannot be condoned without valid and genuine ground.
