otwithstanding the fact that the TPO determined nil ALP of royalty payment and franchisee fee, the amount paid as R&D Cess on these payments has to be allowed as deduction since it is a statutory payment to the Government.
Since in the present case also the assessee had taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole family, therefore, following the decision cited [supra], we hold that penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act in the instant case is not justified.
Since the assessee’s profit and loss account showed only one item of expenditure which had been booked in the accounts and there was no exempt income earned by the assessee, the question of disallowance under section 14A did not arise.
Treating the receipt of huge share application money by an investor-company as unexplained investment, merely due to the reason that low income was declared by such investor in its income-tax return, was not justified, since balance sheet of the investor produced by assessee had proved creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the investor.
If the parties to the agreement are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned therein and the Revenue cannot interpret the said agreement in its own way to include the other costs: Coca-Cola India Inc. case
Briefly the facts of the case are that no PAN and ITR has been filed in this case. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR Information regarding cash deposits in S.B. account by assessee without quoting PAN numbers in the A.Y. under appeal.
Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. (ITAT Delhi) 1. The undisputed facts are that in the original return of income filed by the assessee for the instant years, the income representing the deposits in the bank account with Natwest Bank, London was not declared by the assessee. It is also undisputed that the said […]
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders dated 27/9/20 16 u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & order dated 28/9/20 16 u/s 80 G(5) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh.
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.
