The assessee had not filed the audit report in this case. The assessee was very casual and did not enter appearance for the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty. The assessee has not made out a reasonable cause as mentioned u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for non-furnishing of audit report u/s 44AB of the I.T.Act. Hence, we are of the view that the penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act has been rightly imposed. It is ordered accordingly.
Foreign agent commission and reimbursement of expenditure were not taxable in India and hence, section 195 had no application.
DCIT Vs Hema Mohanlal Divyasree (ITAT Cochin) We have carefully perused the JDA entered between the assessee and the developer. As per the JDA (in page 3 para 4), the construction should have completed and the share of build up area marked for the assessee ought to have been handed over within 36 months of obtaining necessary […]
ITO Vs M/s. Lakshdweep Development Corporation Limited (ITAT Cochin) Interest on delayed payment of VAT and TDS is only compensatory and is not penal in nature. Therefore, the CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance made for the interest expenditure claimed on delayed payment of VAT and TDS. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT These appeals […]
M/s. MAJ Hospital Edappally Vs DCIT (ITAT Cochin) Assessee is entitled to the exemption u/s 11 of the income derived from an activity incidental to the achievement of the objects of the trust. For these reasons, we hold that the assessee’s activities of running the hospital and the nursing school are intricately connected and dependent […]
ITO Vs Mundela Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) Admittedly, the assessee is primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd. (supra) had held that a primary agricultural credit society, registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies […]
Interest earned by co-operative society, engaged in banking business, out of investment made with co-operative bank deductible u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)
ACIT Vs Smt. Jayasree Sreedharan (ITAT Cochin) In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, the only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land was […]
Smt. Girijakumari M. Vs ITO (ITAT Cochi) Compensation for compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land eligible for section 10(37) benefit The assessee’s 70 cents of land at Vizhinjam Village was notified for compulsory acquisition by Government of Kerala for developing Vizhinjam International Seaport. Though the acquisition proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act, the […]
In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land was a compulsory acquisition and the same would be entitled to the benefit enumerated in section 10(37) of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly.
