Follow Us:

Judiciary

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) for mere change of head of income is not justified

November 23, 2017 4344 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT Vs Krishna C. Tandon (HUF) (ITAT Mumbai) In this case penalty proceedings were initiated during quantum assessment for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee contested the same on the premises that full particulars were furnished in the return of income and there was no concealment of income and mere change of head of income […]

TDS U/s. 194J not applicable on Roaming Charges

November 23, 2017 1365 Views 0 comment Print

Tribunal found that roaming charges cannot be considered as fee for technical services, therefore, the provisions of Section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not applicable.

Reassessment not valid if time to issue notice U/s. 143(2) not expired

November 22, 2017 5130 Views 0 comment Print

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that since the reason on which the proceedings under section 147 ceased to exist, the assessing officer is not justified in making additions on other issues.

Income disclosure under fear of penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary

November 22, 2017 2469 Views 0 comment Print

A disclosure made under the fear of a plausible penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary or made in good faith. Mere request for non-initiation of penalty on the ground of disclosure branding the same to be voluntary with a view to buy peace and avoid litigation will not take the assessee out of the scope and ambit of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Cenvat credit not to be reversed on transfer of capital goods to sister concerns without physical movement

November 22, 2017 4011 Views 0 comment Print

In view of settled legal position regarding need for physical removal of capital goods or inputs, in order to attract the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we find that there is no justification to invoke such provision to demand and recover any amount from the appellant in this case

Donation received for specific purpose cannot be regarded as income u/s 2(24)(iia)

November 22, 2017 43722 Views 0 comment Print

Touching Heart Ministries Vs. ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case, the donations were received for specific purpose for acquiring the fixed assets. This is evidenced by the letters placed before us from the donors. The funds are not freely available to the assessee society, for utilizing its objectives other than acquiring specified assets. The […]

AO cannot have disregard finding directions of DRP and pass final assessment order

November 22, 2017 4119 Views 0 comment Print

That judgment referred to the order of the DRP which had held that both the Assessees were not eligible Assessee under Section 144C (15) of the Act and that order of the DRP was binding on the AO. It was further held by this Court that the AO could not have disregarded the finding directions of the DRP and passed the final assessment order.

Interest Income on funds Temporarily Parked as loan / Deposit is Business Income

November 22, 2017 1605 Views 0 comment Print

AO to treat the interest income temporarily parked in the banks and given as unsecured loan which yielded income and which has been offered to tax by the assessee should be treated as income from business and not from other sources.

S.43B(f): provision for future leave encashment allowable in year of payment

November 22, 2017 17832 Views 0 comment Print

M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs. JCIT (OSD) (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The assessee company has created a provision under the head ’Future Leave Encashment’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to explain how the amount debited towards the provision for future leave encashment can be allowed as deduction. In response to […]

No deduction U/s. 54F for amount not invested in CGAS within period U/s. 139(1) or 139(4)

November 22, 2017 1545 Views 0 comment Print

Where assessee failed to deposit the unutilized sales consideration under Capital Gain Account Scheme within the period specified under section 139(1) or 139(4), AO was justified in restricting the claim of deduction to the expenditure incurred upto the due date of filing return of income.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031