Nandadevi Outdoor Leadership School Vs. DIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi) The assessee is engaged in the activities of rock climbing and mountaineering, bag-packing, kayaking, sailing and rafting. It says that it is one of the world‟s biggest outdoor skill trainer and its parent is headquartered in the USA. It offered courses in the Himalayan by instructing. […]
When the bank issues a bank guarantee on behalf of the assessee, all it does is to accept the commitment of making payment of a specified amount to the beneficiary on demand and it is in consideration of this commitment that the bank charges of fee which is termed as ‘bank guarantee commission’
In the present case, the fact that the entire ‘undisclosed income’ was declared by the appellant in the statement recorded during search and the same was also disclosed in the return filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A, clearly goes to show the bona fides of the appellant, not warranting imposition of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act.
M/s. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The bona fide error or bonafide claim constitutes valid defence against the charge of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars […]
Where assessee had offered actual amount received on sale of property for taxation, revenue authorities were not justified in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property
A division bench of the Delhi ITAT, last week held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied if the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) was determined as per the scheme of section 92C in good faith and with due diligence.
The Income Tax Officer Vs Mrs. Lakshmi Vishwanath (ITAT Delhi) Briefly the facts of the case are that the A.O. in the assessment order noted that assessee was asked to explain source of the cash deposit in her bank account maintained with State Bank of India. The assessee attended the proceedings before A.O. and filed […]
AO relied on copies of certain bank statement not bearing any signature of bank official–Authenticity of documents in question Where AO relying on certain loose papers, which were the copies of the bank statement not bearing any signature of the bank official, or the name of the bank or the place or the country where the branch was situated, made addition under section 68 as undisclosed income of assessee in Swiss bank, AO was not justified since the information was not obtained from Swiss bank and documents relied on were not authentic.
ACIT Vs. Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Company can claim Depreciation in respect of Equipment Installed at Residential Premises of its Managing Director, the same should be added as perquisite in the hands of the said Director but cannot be disallowed in the hands of the assessee company
M/s Sharmilee Furnishing P. Ltd Vs. I.T.O (ITAT Delhi) There is no dispute to the fact that the department conducted inquiry in the case of third party where the name of the assessee was also written to have received accommodation entry and accordingly, the AO reached to a conclusion while recording reasons that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was made by making necessary additions.
