Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied for bonafide explanation furnished by assessee as assessee had not offered interest income for tax due to wrong interpretations of the provisions of the Act, not on account of deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Omega Corrugators Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai bench has held that genuine omissions must be excluded from the levy of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.3,57,541/- towards loss on sale of motor car in its profit and […]
Veritas (India) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Assessee had established identity of investors and submitted documents to establish creditworthiness and the certificate issued by the Firm of Accountants for proving the movement of funds from ultimate investors to the foreign companies which establish genuineness of transactions thus, assessee had discharged initial burden placed upon […]
DCIT Vs Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy (ITAT Mumbai) Section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in the event of non deduction of tax (TDS) but not for lesser deduction of tax. Hence, this will not be the reason to disallow the expense u/s 40(a)(ia) just because of less deduction since section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in […]
Mumbai ITAT Ruling: Whether reduction in share capital amounts to a transfer and thereby gives rise to capital gains, if consideration is paid for such reduction?
Payments made to dealers for providing services to ultimate customers in lieu of free service coupons surrendered by them were not in the nature of reimbursement of expenditure incurred by dealers but in the nature of payment of consideration pursuant to a contract, as per which dealer provided such services to ultimate customers, accordingly, assessee was obligated to have deducted tax under section 194C from payments towards service coupons to its dealers.
ITATheld that the ad hoc determination of ALP de-hors Section 92C of the Act cannot be sustained, rendering the entire transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable in law.
Since assessee did not receive any sum over and above the value of its investments from partnership firm on revaluation of assets, therefore, there could not be any levy of capital gains or any levy in the nature of income upon retirement of assessee from firm within the meaning of Section 2(24) in the hands of assessee.
Provision for card receivables (NPA) could not be said to be a provision for liability, because even if debt was not recoverable no liability could be fastened upon assessee. Clause (c) of Expln. to section 115JA did not get attracted and AO was not justified in adding back provision for card receivables (NPA) writen back while computing book profit.
Revision under section 263 by PCIT was not justified as all the four issues questioned by PCIT were thoroughly examined by AO during the assessment proceedings, and after considering relevant facts and explanations furnished by assessee had chosen to accept the claim of the assessee and hence, the same could not be termed as non consideration of issues or AO had failed to carry out required enquiries, which ought to have been carried out in accordance with law. Thus, the assessment order passed by AO was neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
