It is an well established proposition of law that being penal in nature, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked only when there is evidence beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the tax alleged to be evaded.
In the instant case, it is the assessment of person allegedly searched, which is disputed before us, unlike the notice issued for the assessment of `other person’ before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the issue of invalidity of the search warrant in that case was not raised at any point of time prior to […]
If a case falls under clause (i) of section 10(10), the entire amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity becomes exempt. Au contraire, if a case falls under sub-clause (iii) of section 10(10), then, the exemption is limited to the amount as the Central Government may notify in official gazette.
This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-21, New Delhi vide order dated 16-9-2016 for the assessment year 2012- 13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal
For any right to be in the nature of business or commercial right as laid down in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, two criteria should be met. First that it should be right in rem and the second it should be alienable or transferable.
In a significant ruling, the ITAT Delhi held that approval by the Commissioner of Income Tax is not a mandatory requirement to allow deduction of contribution towards EPF under section 38(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has framed the scheme under the Employees provident Fund Act, 1952.
The Delhi ITAT, in a recent ruling, held that imposing penalty by quoting wrong section would not itself make the entire proceedings invalid if the assessee had not raised any objection during pre-assessment stage and has co-operated with the proceedings.
Where AO had only considered the discrepancy regarding gross receipts but did not carry out any inquiry in regard to the nexus between business receipts and cash deposits which was the specific direction of the Tribunal, Commissioner was justified in making revision order since the order was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Medical illness and that to be in the nature of the typhoid fever and UTI is definitely reasonable cause for non- appearing on the date and therefore, we are of the opinion that no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(b) in such circumstances as the same is covered under exception of ‘reasonable cause’ as enshrined in section 273B.
In the present case, the assessee has been able to prove identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Therefore, the authorities below should not have made or confirmed the addition of Rs. 5.75 crores in the hands of the assessee.
