In the case of M/s. Kailash Vahan Udyog Ltd. Vs. DCIT Pune Bench of ITAT have held that according to the provisions of section 115JB Explanation 1 Clause (iii) while computing book profit, the amount of loss brought forward (before depreciation) or unabsorbed depreciation
It was held that wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be denied the immunity under section 271AAA (2) only because entire tax, along with interest, was not paid before filing of income tax return or, for that purpose, before concluding the assessment proceedings.
ITAT Pune held in the case The ACIT vs. M/s. Ambarwadikar & Co., Engineers & Contractors that It is clear that the bill raised by the assessee has been accepted by the department and for whatever reason some amount was not paid during F.Y. 2001-02 but the fact remains that there is no such dispute as claimed by the assessee.
Deccan Education Society Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT Pune) Hon’ble ITAT observed that Merely because some of the donors stated that they have given the donation for admission will not disentitle the society from getting exemption which exists solely for educational purposes
Appeals filed by the assessee were withdrawn. The Revenue filed the appeal. Facts of the case were that the assessee company was engaged in the business of running a mall. A TDS survey was conducted on 15-11-2012 during which it was observed that the assessee company had deducted tax on professional fees u/s.194J at lower rate than as required by the section.
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In the instant case when the deposits are made in cash and most of the withdrawals are by way of clearing and not cash withdrawn, therefore, the theory of peak credit is not fully applicable to the facts of this case.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
