Hatch Associates India (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly, the impugned assessment year before us is A Y 2007 – 08. For that, AY the assessee has filed return of income on 30/10/2007. Notice u/s 143 (2) of The Income Tax Act should have been served on the assessee within 6 months from the […]
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 27.9.2017 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(5) in pursuance of directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide order dated 7.9.2017.
Reasons recorded by AO to reopen assessment merely on basis of information from DIT(Inv.) without independently applying his own mind could not be said to be reason to believe that income had escaped assessment hence, reopening was bad in law.
One these reasonings, in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter— and, if there was no change, it was in support of the assessee— we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the CIT in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken
Where AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of change of head of income in assessment, it was held that mere making a claim which was not acceptable to revenue, could not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to attract penalty proceedings.
Where assessee had made investment in subsidiary companies not to earn tax free income but out of commercial expediency, no dis allowance under section 14A was called for.
In the case of M/s. A.N. Build well Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, the ITAT Delhi bench comprising Amit Shukla (JM) and SH. O.P. Kant (AM) was held that if the significant risk and reward are transferred to the buyer, the amount received from the buyer to the extent of the stage of completion of the project has accrued to the Assessee- Builder and it should be subject to tax in terms of section 5 of the Income Tax Act.
Both appeals by assessee are directed against the different orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 28-2-2017 for assessment year 2011-2012, challenging the addition on merit as well as levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessee cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the six companies as discussed above failed to reply to the notices issued to them under section 133(6) of the Act.
Shri Neeraj Goel Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Addition on account of alleged interest income is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the document does not mention the name of the assessee, does not bear the signature of the assesee, not in the handwriting of the assessee, documents has imply jottings of certain figures […]
