This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-V, Hyderabad, dated 31/08/2016 confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act dated 4.3.2015.
Where AO failed to record his satisfaction in the assessment order as to under which limb, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated against assessee, being essential condition was not fulfilled, penalty was liable to be deleted.
Where assessee did not furnish any evidence of earning agricultural income shown in return of income merely because assessee was holding agricultural land of 20 bighas would not prove that assessee earned any agricultural income or has any past savings so as to make any investment in the property.
CBDT Vs. Satya Narain Shukla (Delhi High Court) A plain reading of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule. Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause […]
Sub-section (1) of Sec. 271AAB of the Act uses the word may not shall. May cannot be equated with shall especially in penalty proceeding. Using the word may in our opinion, gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made default under said provision. Therefore we hold that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory and is discretionary.
Mr. Milind Gawai, Commissioner of Central Tax Pune-I Commissionerate in his additional affidavit-in-reply filed in Writ Petition (St.) No.2230 of 2018 has, firstly, indicated that the system error or fault or what is called IT related glitch would be a grievance definitely looked into and is being looked into by Grievance Redressal Committee.
In the matter of VNR Infra Limited wherein the Hyderabad Bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT Hyderabad / Adjudicating Authority) went beyond the law for no reason to disagree with Committee of Creditors i.e. bankers and appointed another Insolvency Professional as liquidator and made some averse professional remarks against the RP by making own observations without […]
ITO Vs Adhikar (ITAT Cuttack) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in the activity of Micro Finance. The Assessing Officer considered the same as non-charitable activity within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act on the ground that the activities were carried out on commercial lines. […]
Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) The allegations with regard to the CIT(A) mentioning of incorrect dates in the order sheet and the office of the CIT[E] threatening to attach the Petitioner’s bank account and reopen Assessments for the last two years in case it fails to deposit the amount of […]
Indo Arya Central Transport Limited & Ors. Vs. CIT – TDS (Delhi High Court) HC held that At this stage, it will neither be fair nor proper for the writ court to question and decide the question of validity of Sanction Order on merits of reasonable cause etc. as it would amount to a pre […]
