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.
Punjab Cricket Association Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Punjab Cricket Association (Assessee) is regularly following commercial activity by commercially exploiting its property and rights to hold matches and thereby earning huge income, hence the said activity can not be said to be incidental activity rather the commercial exploitation of the match is one of the main […]
Where assessee failed to upload the report electronically in Form No. 3CEB but said report was promptly made available in the assessment proceedings itself, said failure was accepted as bona fide and accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271BA was to be quashed.
whether interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land in the nature of compensation is exempt u/s 10(37) or chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from Other Sources’?
Shri Vijay Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the Assessing Officer while making the impugned additions has exceeded his jurisdiction. That the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny issue i.e. regarding security transaction. The Assessing Officer could not find any reason […]
Smt. Asha Gandhi Vs The ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Tribunal urged State to remove violations of tax laws by new assessees such as part time enterprising housewives, illiterate, semi-skilled men/women or teenagers by highlighting the concepts of agents of economic change; creation of Tax Advisory Cell; and coming out with Policy/Tax Compliance Scheme for the […]
Shri Dilpreet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Section 148 Conclusive proof as to escapement of income at notice stage not required At the stage of issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, the only question to be seen is whether there was relevant material, on the basis of which a reasonable […]
Assessee was not eligible for exemption from payment of MAT as per the provisions of section 115JB(6), since, admittedly, it did not qualify as a business or services rendered by an entrepreneur or developer in a unit or SEZ as per definition of the said terms in the SEZ Act.
Amount received by assessee from ‘HUF’, being its member, was a capital receipt in his hands and was not exigible to income tax as in case of individual, the HUF has not been included in the definition of relative in explanation to section 56(2) (vii) as it was not so required because in case of HUF,
