Nand Lal Popli Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Assessing Officer, for making the impugned addition has started with the presumption that an amount to the extent of 92% of the gross receipts is the expenditure incurred by the assessee, which is a totally wrong premise. If the income component is estimated, how the expenditure component on […]
That non filing of the Form No. 10 within stipulated period may be an irregularity but not illegality, if the assessee cures the defect during assessment proceedings, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of accumulation as provided u/s 11(2) of the I.T. Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in upholding IDC receipts as normal trading receipts ignoring that the money belongs to state government?
ACIT Vs Shri Gurdeep Singh (ITAT Chandigarh) The intention behind enacting provisions of section 2(22) (e) are that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as dividend because if so […]
Paramount Impex Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) we are not in agreement with the Revenue that the non maintenance of stock register was sufficient for exercising the power of rejecting the books of the assessee. It is not unusual for businesses dealing in large number of small items and operating at a small or medium scale […]
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in disallowing the expense of retainership debited in P & L on the basis of non deduction of TDS u/s 194C when the Same was shown as salary by recipient in their Income Tax return?
Transactions between the assessee and the Commission Agent were relating to the sale of agriculture crops, therefore, there was no receipt or repayment of loan or deposit, accordingly penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271 E of the Act is also deleted.
Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Set top boxes was the property of CISCO which was taken by assessee on lease from CISCO against payment of lease charges thus assessee was not entitled to claim the principal component of alleged lease rent paid as ‘revenue expenditure’ u/s 37(1) however, entitled to claim […]
TAT see no reason to uphold the levy of penalty in the present case U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the basis for levy of penalty, being cancellation of registration granted to the assessee U/s 12A of the Act and as a consequence treating its surplus and corpus donation as not exempt but taxable under the Act, has been quashed by the ITAT.
The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are penal in nature and they are required to be strictly construed. These cannot be extended by way of liberal interpretation to include the cases, which otherwise, do not fall within the purview and scope of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
