Section 194J would have application only when the technology or technical knowledge, experiences/ skills of a person is made available to others which can be further used by him for its own purpose and not where by using technical systems, services are rendered to others.
Assessment order shows that it is only basing on the revised assessment, the assessment was completed. Only reason stated by the AO for initiation of penalty was that no revision could be made in case of belated filing of the original return of wealth.
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.
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.
