In all these appeals preferred by the assessee, the action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs.8,53,281 in assessment year 2006-07, Rs.73,54,710 in assessment year 2007-08, Rs.6,81 ,61 5 in assessment year 2008-09, Rs.49,48,020 in assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.10,56,756 in assessment year 2010-11 has been questioned.
ITAT Delhi held that any receipt directly and intimately linked with the procurement of capital asset is in the nature of capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. So such brokerage cannot be taxed in the hand of property buyer.
he factum of issuance of notice within time is to be proved on query by the authority whose jurisdiction is challenged for want of The aggrieved party cannot be asked to lead negative evidence in support of its claim.
Unsigned And Undated Paper Found During The Search With No Corroborative Evidence. Not Recording Of The Satisfaction By AO: Whether Additions To The Income Can Be Made?
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT held that Penalty can be imposed only on disproved claim of expenditure and not unproved claim of expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held that as to whether a transaction is entered into at an Arm’s Length Price or not must depend upon the facts of each case relating to the transaction per-se i.e. the transaction itself as the profit is only a possibility of the desired result with or without the aid of international transaction.
ITAT held that compensation received for loss of business activity is a capital receipt as it is injury to the profit making apparatus and not the loss of profits. Therefore, in the present case , non-supply of land by supplier which was to be used by the consortium was injury to profit making apparatus and hence capital receipt.
ITAT Delhi held that the renovation made by the assessee company is in the nature of permanent structure by way of Brick Wall partitions, panelling of Aluminium , Flooring etc. which cannot be covered under current repairs as provided in s. 30 of IT Act, 1961.
ITAT Held that Section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 cannot be invoked, where no regular activities were undertaken by the Assessee in respect of the investments to earn exempt income and no change in the investments during the year?
From the working submitted by the Appellant, it is evident that the value of each share is worked out at Rs. 40,616/-. Thus, apparently, higher share premium of Rs. 39,900/- is justifiable because of limited number of shares of the assessee company who are actual owner of assets of worth more than Rs. 60 crores.
