Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Grounds of Appeal related to the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , 1961 AY 2015-16 1. In the facts and circumstances of t...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai removes penalty imposed on Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) as addition was made on estimation basis, not due to concealm...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed ITAT Mumbai order analysis of Yogesh P. Thakkar vs DCIT, focusing on disputed long-term capital gains and com...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in the case of Krimesh Ramesh Divecha Vs DCIT for A.Y. 2015-16. Understand the assessm...
Income Tax : Delhi HC: No penalty for New Holland Tractors if assessee's contention was plausible and bona fide, provided full disclosure of fa...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Grey Orange India Pvt. Ltd., allowing income tax deduction on warranty expenses. Detailed analysis of...
Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Once the assessee files a revised return under Section 1 53A, for all other provisions of the Act, the revised return will be treated as the original return filed under Section 139. For the Revenue to invoke Explanation-5, it would have to prove that its requirements are […]
Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that on perusal of page 10 read with page 13 of the factual paper book filed by the assessee comprising of the profit and loss account for the year ended 31/03/2009 and the schedule for the other income thereon, the sum of Rs.3 Crores has […]
Jayant B Patel HUF Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) (a) No penalty under Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied in respect of undisclosed income found in the course of search but which were duly returned by the assessee in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act together with compliance of other conditions […]
Delhi High Court has upheld the deletion of the penalty on the ground i.e. the fact that appeals were admitted proved that the issue was debatable.
ACIT Vs Kishangarh Hi Tech Textile Park Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) Since the assessee has disclosed entire facts in the Balance Sheet with regard to the subsidy of Rs. 36.00 crores received by it and the depreciation at 80% on the entire windmill as a whole has been claimed on the basis of various decisions of […]
Shri Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Admittedly, all the amounts were received by the assessee through banking channels and he had mentioned about the same in his return of income. The only mistake done by the assessee was to treat both the lands as agricultural lands. Once the notice under Section 143(3) of […]
Fox Mandal & Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to decide the appeal exparte and thereafter sustained the penalty levied by the AO u/s. […]
Advent Computer Services Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) It is an admitted fact that assessee has not reported capital gain derived from transfer of equity shares in pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for amalgamation of M/s. i Theories Business Factory India Pvt. Ltd., with the assessee company, even though […]
The issue under consideration is whether disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) made by AO forming an opinion that interest bearing funds were withdrawn from the firm being capital withdrawn by the partners and interest free advances is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is correct in stating that cognizance taken under section 153A of the Act is illegal at the end of the A.O.?
