Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that if the AO was satisfied with the original assessment then the re-assessment order under section 147/ 148 of the Income Tax Act passed only on the direction of the superior officers is invalid.
This Court finds that when the petitioner had agreed to comply with the payment of disputed tax at the rate of Rs. 50 lakhs per month, they are bound to comply with such an undertaking. Now arguing before this Court pleading their financial incapacity or requesting this Court to examine the merits of the assessment is unsustainable, as this Court finds that there is no error in the impugned order.
CIT Vs M/s Mata Amrithandamayi Mata (Kerala High Court) A reading of Section 11 shows that subject to the provisions of Sections 62 and 63, the incomes enumerated therein shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. The person in receipt of the […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata bench recently ordered that the penalty u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for the delayed deduction of TDS amount.
Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders.
Probably, the case study can be a reason for issuing a revision notice, but that cannot be the sole basis for completing the assessment. Repeatedly, Courts have held that electricity current consumption charges cannot be a basis for revision of turnover.
The fact that the assessee had given his personal property as collateral security for enabling M/s. Palsons Drugs Pvt. Ltd to obtain loan and other credit facilities is not in dispute. Under the circumstances the proposition of law as laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs CIT’ (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case.
Penalty u/s. 271B is attracted for failure to get accounts audited u/s. 44AB. Even though the law prescribes the levy of penalty, in case of default, the same is not automatic as provisions of Section 273B gives relief, when there is a reasonable cause.
Order of penalty passed under sections 271D and 271E was to set aside as the same was passed after expiry of six months from the action initiated for imposition of penalty and barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c).
Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai); We noted that coal beneficiation has been defined as cost effective and significant step towards improving power plant efficiency and reducing the GHG emissions from the coal fired power plants in India would be to increase the availability of clean beneficiated coals using appropriate beneficiation technologies. […]
