Offence under section 276CC stood committed upon the non-filing of return under section 142(1) within the prescribed time limit. Hence, no case was made out for discharge of assessee.
Pr. CIT Vs Prakash Mangilal Jain (Bombay High Court) Following FIFO or LIFO method cannot be the basis for levying penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable […]
Shri Ashok Kumar Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that first of all, the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order has simply made the addition on the ground that assessee during the course of survey has offered sum of Rs.20 lacs towards investment in furnishing and in equipments in showroom over and above the […]
In the instant case, has received cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the stamp duty cost for purchase of a house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section 273B will come to the rescue of the assessee as a reasonable cause.
M/s. West Asia Exports & Imports Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) We know that Sec 41(1) of Income Tax Act 1961, where there is cessation of any trading liability then the benefit accruing on account of cessation of such liability will be deemed to profits and gains of business or profession whether or not such […]
Supply from Bonded warehouse will fall under Schedule III of CGST Act and exempted from GST and supply from Non-Bonded warehouse will not fall under Schedule III of CGST Act and therefore not exempted from GST
Since no notice under section 143(2) had been issued for completion of the re-assessment proceedings, therefore, the re-assessment order itself was bad in law and the same could not be revised under section 263.
AO was not justified in holding that losses incurred by assessee due to selling goods at less than cost price to e-commerce operators was to create marketing intangibles assets and therefore the loss to the extent it was created due to predatory pricing should be regarded as capital expenditure incurred by assessee and should be disallowed because where a trader transferred his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction was a bonafide one, the taxing authority could not take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the books results of assessee and resorting to a process of estimating total income of assessee in the manner in which he did, what could be taxed was only income that accrues or arises as laid down in Sec.5, nothing beyond Sec.5 could be brought to tax.
Exemption under section 11 in respect on the surplus reflected by assessees accounts was denied by AO because assessee was not registered under section 12AA, however, the matter was remanded back to AO to verify as to whether expenditure were actually incurred for the purposes of the running the institution or organizing its activities which was allowable as deduction from surplus and assessee was directed to establish its bona fides before claiming the exemption.
Since the stock sold was very old, it was not strange to sell them at reduced rate and AO had no authority to compel assessee as to at which rate, assessee had to make sale of its goods, hence, deduction of trading loss on sale of stock was allowable.
