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.
ITAT held penalty under section 271D not leviable where cash loan was deposited without control and promptly refunded, citing absence of satisfaction and reasonable cause.
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.
Unless return of income already filed is disposed of, notice under section 148, cannot be issued, i.e., no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated.
Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah ACIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (Delhi ITAT) Mercantile based accounting requires income and expenditure of a financial year has to be taken in account in the same, concerned financial year. In ACIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. & vice versa [ITA Nos. 5246, 5247, 5248, 5249 and 5286/Del/2012, […]
M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. CIT Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, ‘where the amount paid is partly penal and partly compensatory, the amount to the extent that it is compensatory could be allowed as deduction’. Further, Hon’ble Jurisdictional […]
it has been submitted that assessment proceedings before the AO were earlier being taken care of by the tax counsel, who, however, stopped attending the proceedings without intimating the assessee as differences had developed between the assessee and the counsel.
The contract of guarantee does not give any rise to principal – agent relationship between the assessee and the bank and, therefore, the consideration received by the bank on account of guarantee commission cannot be reckoned as commission as contemplated under section 194H and accordingly, there was no requirement to deduct TDS on this payment.
