A issue being a debatable issue at the point of time when the assessee filed its return of income penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on that count cannot be sustained, mere fact that the addition has been made or confirmed does not per se lead to imposition of penalty
If a particular accounting system has been followed and accepted and there is no acceptable reason to differ with it, the doctrine of consistency would come into play; the method of accounting cannot be rejected.
M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that evidences which have been furnished by the assessee have not been discussed; and if the Director has not been found then it cannot be said that identity of the company is not established especially in wake of income tax records and share allotment […]
Macquarie Global Services Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Once the claim of deduction u/s 10AA has been accepted in the first year of the operations and also in the second year, then in the third year same cannot be withdrawn by examining the factors which were required to be seen in the first year of the […]
United Education Society Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, the assessee society is registered under section 12A of the Act as a charitable trust engaged in charitable activities for imparting education through its colleges. It is also not in dispute that the assessee society has been claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act on the […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Splendor Landbase Limited (ITAT Delhi) It is seen that section 153A starts with Non obstante clause which inter alia overrides the provisions of section 139. This shows that return filed under section 153A is a separate return. Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case […]
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 12.09.2014, passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-XX, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.144C(3) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. In the grounds of appeal, following grounds have been raised.
That the order passed by Assessing Officer (‘AO’) dated 30.12.2016 as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) dated 29.12.2017 and the additions/disallowances made and upheld are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.
ITAT held that, if book profit and tax payable u/s 115JB was based on certificate issued by Chartered Accountant then it cannot be held that, assesses claim was not bonafide or it has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty so levied deleted.
Investments on whom dividend received, though chargeable to tax but allowed as rebate in view of DTAA agreement cannot be included for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act.
