M/s. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) Belief of the assessee that return of advance from customers is not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s.271E of the Act of Rs.21,49,943/- cannot be sustained. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the assessee against […]
Xavier Institute of Management Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) The Cuttack bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income received by a charitable institution imparting education shall not be charged for receiving training and consultancy fee from corporates as the same cannot be treated as a ‘commercial activity’ for denying tax […]
ITO Vs Adhikar (ITAT Cuttack) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in the activity of Micro Finance. The Assessing Officer considered the same as non-charitable activity within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act on the ground that the activities were carried out on commercial lines. […]
We find that the audit report was obtained within section 139(1) time limit is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the copy of audit report was furnished to the Assessing Officer as and when the Assessing Officer called for the same.
Lease hold rights are not eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act considering it as intangible asset and, hence, dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (ITAT Cuttack) In the present case found that thee Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings on the same facts which were available before him at the time of making assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and no new tangible material has come on the basis of which it could be said […]
The provisions of section 40A(3) are not intended to restrict the business activities but to caution that payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- are made in cheque/draft. The provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are to be in consonance with business expediency trade practice and other genuine relevant factors
CIT may consider an order of the AO to be erroneous not only it contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because it is a stereo typed order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make enquirers which are called for in the circumstances of the case.
Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2015 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable.
Taxability of income earned by an assessee during the period when the project was not complete and business had not commenced has remained a debatable point in many cases.
