Assessee is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. The addition was based on the basis of loan creditors found from the balance sheet already filed prior to the search along with the original return of income.
Peak credit theory will be applicable only when there are deposits in cash and withdrawals in cash. In the instant case when the deposits are made in cash and most of the withdrawals are by way of clearing and not cash withdrawn, therefore, the theory of peak credit is not fully applicable to the facts of this case.
Liability need not to always be a contractual one. On the basis of understanding between the two parties, both sides have passed necessary accounting entries. It was a genuine transaction. Since the assessee was unable to complete the SEZ it transferred the land to the sister concern IGICPL.
In the case of Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd, Hon’ble ITAT has held that once issue on which penalty u/s 271 (1)(C)levied involves substantial question of law, then, no penalty is leviable.
In the case of VV Constructions v ACIT, ITAT Pune held that the Books of account cannot be rejected for only the reason that there was some over writing in one of the transactions. Also, it can’t be rejected because the Assessee have furnished the PAN numbers and made TDS in all the transactions
In the case of Abhishek Cotspin Mills Ltd. v ACIT it is held by ITAT Pune that whenever the Assessee declares the returned income which is higher than the actual Asseessed Income, then interest would be charged under section 234C on the assessed Income and In case assessed income is higher than returned Income Than such Interest will be charged on returned Income.
In the case of Masud Ahmed Qureshi v ITO it was held by ITAT Pune that whenever, there is a dispute regarding the valuation u/s 50C, it would be better to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer so that the proper report could be furnished regarding it.
In the case of Pune District Security Guards Board vs CIT, ITAT Pune held that welfare bodies formed under Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 were eligible for registration under section 12AA even though they charge fee for their services.
In the case of Xerces Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, ITAT Pune held that assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough.
The assessee had made payments to non-residents on account of interest, royalties and fees for technical services and the same were subject to withholding under Section 195 of the Act. The assessee in accordance with provisions of Section 90(2) deducted tax on such payments as per the beneficial rates prescribed in the DTAA with respective countries.
