It is held that requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there can be no penalty u/s 271B of the Act.
It is crystal clear that the terms of Section 40A(3) are not absolute and that the genuine and bonafide transactions are not taken out of the sweep and it is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the AO, the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed u/s 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused to the genuine difficulty to the payee.
ITAT held that the rate of profit @15% on estimated unaccounted sale is an arbitrary rate without any comparable cases. The best comparison is also available of the business of the assessee himself wherein he has shown net profit at the rate of 6%.
Section 150(2) enacts the situation where the provisions for assessment pursuant to appeal u/s 150(1) will not be applicable. Provisions of section 150(1) shall not apply where the reassessment proceedings would have been barred by time even at the time when the order, which was the subject-matter of appeal, revision, etc., was passed.
As per provisions u/s 24, it is crystal clear that deduction is allowable on account of interest paid on the borrowed capital within three years from the end of the financial year in which capital was borrowed.
A plain reading of the power of attorney, makes it clears that the powers given therein are liaison office specific. The AO’s conclusion that the power of attorney granted unfettered powers to its liaison office’s employee, to do all or any acts for and on behalf of the assessee, is incorrect.
While granting sanction u/s 151 of the I.T Act,1961 for granting sanction for approval of re-assessment proceedings it is necessary for the authorithy to apply his/her mind. Mere affiction of signature along with date cannot be considered as proper approval.
ITAT Delhi held in the case of Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that both the submission of the assessee is unacceptable. Regarding first submission for not carrying out any transfer pricing adjustment in view of the benefit enjoyed by it u/s 10A is concerned, we find that no exception has carved out by the statute for non-determination of the ALP of an international transaction
ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT that a plain reading of Sec.80-IC (8)(v) which defines the term initial assessment year read with Sec.80-IC(8)(ix) which defines the term substantial expansion makes it clear that there is no restriction on more than one substantial expansion being undertaken by an assessee.
ITAT Delhi held in the case DCIT vs. M/s. Sam India Abhimanyu Housing that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA when the present assessee is not covered u/s 132 i.e. search conducted on the Assessee.
