The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding initiated after 4.5 years from date of original assessment order is justified in lawand also when order was silent about the levy of penalty under section 271B?
ITAT states that, disclosure of manner in which undisclosed income was earned and substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income was earned are two different things. Hence, there is no clarity in the stand of the Revenue for initiation of penalty under Section 271AAA,
Merely because assessee has inserted some figures, which are not in coherence with the other figures in the income tax return, there is a mistake apparent from the record, which needs to be rectified. Thus, the lower authorities are not justified in rejecting the application under section 154 of the act of the assessee. Hence, ITAT allow the appeal of the assessee.
Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether assessee is liable for exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act without disallowing any expenditure under section 14A? ITAT noted that this issue is duly covered by decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. […]
Hence, the contention of the assessee investment made for acquiring controlling interest in Dabur India Ltd should not be subject to disallowance under section 14A is rejected.
DCIT Vs Ajanta Tubes Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the A.O. is correct in rejecting the valuation report obtained by the assessee? In the present case, assessee had sold its land and building. Assessee had taken the cost of acquisition for land as per valuation report as at 1-4-1981 as against […]
Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the assessment will sustain even if the Assessing Officer ignoring the statutory provisions of section 144C, passed the Final assessment order without issuing draft assessment order to the assessee? In the present case, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2017 remanded the […]
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in holding that shares of listed companies received by the appellant company as gift without consideration, as part of internal family realignment amongst members of the family, could not be regarded as valid “gift”, and further considering the same to be sham and colorable transactions?
ITAT state that the issue where one turnover can be taxed in the hands of two different assessee one being partnership firm M/s. Satyam Builders and another being proprietary concern of the assessee namely satyam Builders. The answer is emphatically No.
The issue under consideration is whether the appellant was to be assessed in the capacity of an Association of Person (AOP) or the members of the AOP were assessable to tax separately in their individual capacity?
