Whether the transactions between the head office in India and branch office in Canada can be considered as international transactions? The assessee had entered into certain transaction with his branch office in Canada. The AO had taken these transactions also into sweep for the purposes of making the transfer pricing adjustment.
Assessing officer has made few additions in his assessment order which were later on deleted by the CIT (A) on merits. Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal against an order of CIT(A). However in this case the tax effect was less than Rs 4 lacs.
1. The assessee is an individual, who earned rental income from certain properties and claimed deduction for interest on loan paid by the assessee as interest u/s 24(b)of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The A.O., on perusal of interest certificate given by the bank, noticed that out the total interest of Rs. 29,89,223/-
The reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 R 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. Accordingly, The notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.) has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.) has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify.
Assessee association was established with the main object of improving public transport system in the country and its objects as per memorandum of association clearly reveals that the objects of the assessee association are dedicated towards improving road safety standards
No interest under the provisions of section 234A, 234B or 234C or penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 or section 271A or section 271B shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income determined in the block assessments
The assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT (supra), the Hon’ble Court has held that ‘if there is no reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment based on new tangible material, then the reopening of assessment amounts to impermissible review’.
The assessee company is not the shareholder in M/s Precision Stock & Credit Pvt. Ltd. and received the amount from the said company in the course of ordinary business activities. Therefore, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not applicable.
