According to the provisions of section 12AA of the I.T. Act, the Commissioner, on the receipt of Application for registration of a trust or institution shall (a) call for such documents or information from the trust or institution as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of the trust
However, it is a well-settled proposition that the quantum of penalty proceedings are separate proceedings and penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that the assessee did not challenge or agitate the issue before higher forum and accepted the disallowance made by the AO.
Whether assessment related to pre-liquidation period cannot be done ex-parte during the period of liquidation without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to ex-management?
Though in these case the appeal in quantum was decided in favour of the assessee and thereby penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, there are also cases where the appeal in quantum was decided by Tribunal against the assessee and the appeal was pending before High Court for disposal but High Court had admitted the appeal, even in that case, it was decided by Delhi Tribunal that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied being debatable issue
To make any disallowance under section 40A(3), it is a precondition that the assessee must have claimed deduction, directly or indirectly, for which payment is made in cash exceeding the specified limit.
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.
