Impugned Section 271(c) penalty has arisen in consequence to the lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s section 54F deduction claim. And in assessee’s quantum appeal ITAT has already deleted the foregoing 54F disallowance and therefore, penalty in issue herein has no legs to stands as a necessary corollary.
It is settled position of law that merely because credit was outstanding for long time not lead to conclusion that sundry creditors are not payable
Vikrant Happy Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Coming to the facts on hands in the present case the fact remains admitted that the sellers from whom the assessee purchased lands were identified the transaction and also acknowledged the cash payments, thereby, it shows the transaction is genuine, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs […]
Babusha Haribhau Gade Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Another issue for consideration is whether the appellant has converted the land into stock-in-trade as claimed. It is a fact that this issue was not raised before the AO. Therefore, the AO had no opportunity to verify the assessee’s said claim. This Bench made a specific query to […]
When there was no clear documentary evidence to prove the identity of the assessee the burden of proof lies on him claiming the benefit of being the assessee.
Assessing Officer can make `other addition’ in the reassessment proceedings, provided, the `foundational addition’ is made. When this proposition is taken to a next level, no different consequences will emerge, if the `foundational addition’ is itself finally deleted in an appeal.
Since the R&D facilities for which the assessee incurred costs outside India are neither of the assessee nor approved by the prescribed authority, there can be no question of granting any weighted deduction on the expenses incurred outside India.
Law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him.
Gourishankar Girdharilal Lohiya (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s order dated 17.02.2020 passed in case no.ABD/CIT(A)-1/199/2011-12 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. I straightway advert to the assessee’s […]
Software maintenance fees, consulting charges and training fees which are incidental to software license fee, assumes same character as that of software license fee. We held that the consideration received towards software license fee cannot be termed as Royalty.
