Since, the determination of arm’s length price in the appeal effect order has not lead to any transfer pricing adjustment, with no effect on income of the assessee, hence, penalty provisions are not applicable in this case, therefore, we cancel the orders of the authorities below thereby deleting the penalty in dispute.
Nowhere in the assessment order states the specific charge of alleged concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law.
M/S Veer Vardhman Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As AO has not passed the speaking order in disposing of the assessee ‘s objections against the notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, before proceeding with the assessment, hence subsequent assessment order is bad in law and deserving of being quashed. Full […]
i) The Authority below erred in taking the Annual Value of House Property (Industrial Shed) Rs.23,05,590/- without appreciating the provision of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its recent order ruled that firm cannot claim refund under the income Tax Act when TDS certificate is issued in the name of the partner of the Firm.
If AO was not satisfied regarding transaction relating to the cash deposited by partner whose identity was not in doubt and assessee had furnished all the relevant documents, then addition could have been made in the hands of said partner and not in the hands of the assessee.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest under section 234B is not leviable in respect of payments to the non-resident assessee being subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) after filing of the return of the Assessee, by way of letter, makes the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 bad in law.
For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue had to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the ld. PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the LD. PCIT to conduct such inquiry.
M/s Amira Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Pr. C.I.T. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee had filed various replies to the ld. PCIT in response to notice u/s of the Act 263 of the Act stating that all the issues raised by the PCIT have been examined by the AO during the course of assessment. The PCIT has […]
