In the present case, it is stated that the Petitioner has already paid the Clean Energy Cess under Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2010 CFA 2010′) on the coal lying in stock on 30th June, 2017. Such stock is stated to be around 2,85,418 tonnes, on which the cess already paid is to an extent of Rs. 11.41 crores.
In view of Section 174 of the U.P.G.S.T. as there is no notification repealing the benefit conferred upon the petitioner under the scheme of the Act, he is entitle to collect entertainment tax as in the past upto 31st March, 2020 and to retain the percentage of it in accordance with the scheme.
On the enforcement of the GST, it got itself migrated for the purposes of GST as a partnership firm but instead of issuing registration as a partnership firm, it has been shown to have been registered as a sole proprietorship.
In our view, the issue relating to the assessees claim of deduction under section 54F, is debatable in nature. Merely because the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, agreed for disallowance of its claim for deduction under section 54F, will not lead to a conclusion that the assessee has either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of his income. That being the case, in our view, it is not a fit cause for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Assumption of jurisdiction over assessee under section 153C on the basis of statement of searched person, however, seized documents making no reference of either the assessee or any transaction entered into by it, was highly misplaced and, therefore, set aside.
In the present case, the fact that the entire ‘undisclosed income’ was declared by the appellant in the statement recorded during search and the same was also disclosed in the return filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A, clearly goes to show the bona fides of the appellant, not warranting imposition of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act.
M/s. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The bona fide error or bonafide claim constitutes valid defence against the charge of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars […]
Where assessee had offered actual amount received on sale of property for taxation, revenue authorities were not justified in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property
It is now well settled that a petitioner / plaintiff is the dominus litis and it is open to him to pursue or abandon his case. Withdrawal cannot be denied except when the person making the prayer has obtained some advantage / benefit, which he seeks to retain.
Background It is a matter relating to validity of re-opening of assessment on a technical ground in the case of Mayurbhai Mangaldas Patel v ITO. The learned Ahemdabad ITAT Bench has noted all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law as applicable in very clear manner. It has kept some issues open […]
