The dispute is regarding treating the assessee in default u/s 201 (1) and consequential levy of interest u/s 201 (1A) for failure to deduct TDS in respect of amounts payable to M/s Overseas Shipbuilding Cooperation Centre in connection with consultancy work.
In the instant case, all the shares have been bought by the assessee in the regular course of his business, employing common funds, depositing them in the same D-Mat account, and even through the same broker and infrastructure.
The penalty in the instant case stands levied in the sum of Rs.2,41,858/-, i.e., at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, in view of Explanation (4) to section 271(1)(c). The entire enhancement in assessment having been absorbed against brought forward (unabsorbed) business losses
The entire grievance revolves around the premium paid by the assessee to M/s. MMRDA Ltd. for the leasehold rights acquired by the assessee through the lease deed dt. 22nd November, 2004. It is the say of the Revenue that this lease premium was liable for deduction of tax at source failing
The assessee has shown Long Term Capital gains during the year at Rs. 3888,313/- which has been accepted by the AO. If the AO was of the firm belief that the assessee is engaged in trading activities in the shares then it should not make any difference if the shares are held more than 12 months
The dispute is regarding allowability of exemption under section 54 of the Act and computation of long term capital gain in respect of exchange of old flat with a new flat and cash compensation under development agreement with the builder.
The arm’s length result under the TNMM is determined to the net profit margin of a comparable transactions under a comparable circumstances and the profitability derived from uncontrolled party engaged in similar business activity under similar circumstances are to be analysed.
Explore Zyg Pharma vs. DCIT case – Sales tax waiver taxability and provident fund delay. Learn about ITAT Mumbai’s decision on these income tax matters.
After considering the rival submissions and carefully gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the affidavit of Shri Sunil Hirawat, CA of the assessee, we note that the facts of the case do not suggest that the assessee has acted in a malafide manner
Merely because a claim (per the return of income) is a legal claim, or has a legal aspect to it – which would be in each case – the same by itself cannot be a cause for non levy of penalty in every case, as where there is no valid basis for the same (i.e., the legal claim).
