1. Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Act beyond the 04 years after the end of relevant assessment year was bad in law as the necessary approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of Section 151 (1) of the Act had not been obtained by the Assessing Officer
The Delhi High Court, while hearing the writ petition of DANISCO India Private Limited, has read down the provisions of section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) at twenty percent on payments to non-residents since the provision of DTAA would prevail over the said provision.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, last day held that mere voluntary surrender of income without disclosing its source cannot rescue assessee from facing penal consequences under the Income Tax Act.
Hon’ble ITAT upheld the position of law as iterated by CIT (A) that it is an established law applicable for imposition of penalty that law, as in force, at the time of filing of Return would be applicable.
Margins derived on export of parts to AE are not comparable with the margins derived from sales made in the domestic market. Besides, on facts, it was also found that not only the parts and finished goods are not comparable, but the class of customers to whom they sold is also different.
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue v. Chhattisgarh Urology Society recently announced that a society consists of urologist doctors eligible for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
D.C.I.T Vs. M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) On a perusal of the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of proceedings we find that the Assessing Officer did not strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings. However, in the Assessment Order, Assessing […]
Manek Lodge Properties Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case the assessee is nothing but association of co-owners of certain properties whose only objective is to derive income from letting out of property and nothing more. The bench also held that if the contention of Assessee is to be accepted, […]
We are of the view that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee merely because reply has not been received by the AO in response to notice issued under Section 133(6). The AO having issue the notice and such notice having been served on the person concerned, the AO has to take the process to the logical end. He cannot draw adverse inference merely because reply has not been received.
In the case of Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd, Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that addition cannot be made since the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the non-existent amalgamated company and not on the amalgamating company.
