EADS India (P) Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) In case of amalgamation, assessee was required to file the revised Form No. 36 in accordance with rules, to continue its appeal in the name of new entity. In the absence of any amended Form 36/memo of parties, the present appeals were not maintainable. It is […]
Commission is convinced with the averment of the Appellant for having suffered gross detriment due to the delay of over 2 years in providing the information to him. Appellant deserves to be compensated on this account.
Judicial proceedings and records thereof are public records and the appellant has a right to secure desired information. After hearing the appellant and perusal of record, the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent PIO to offer inspection of the judicial file to the appellant on a mutual convenient day and time.
If a company contravenes the provisions of this section, the company shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees and every director and key managerial personnel of the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and where the contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for every day after the first during which the contravention continues
Deletion Of Penalty In Case Of Bonafide Belief Of An Assessee: Especially When The Action Of Assessee Is Supported By Factual Circumstances And A Decision- Section 271 (1)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the penalty in respect of failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.
We are referring to Writ Petition 454 of 2015 of Indira Jaising. Vs others which resulted in the famous judgement of Supreme Court on the system of designation of senior advocates in Supreme Court and in other High Courts. One can easily read the judgement as under:
An assessee is liable to penalty under section 221(1) of the Act in a case in which the though the assessee has not paid the self assessment tax under section 140A, while filing the return of income, but revises the income, by filing revised return of income, and pays the tax on the revised return of income at the time of filing the revised return of income?
G. Narasiman Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) Belated return filed under section 139(4) could not be revised under section 139(5). Therefore, revised return filed by assessee was invalid and to frame assessment by considering such return as return filed under section 139(1) was in conflict with charging interest under section 234A for delay in filing of […]
Denying 12AA registration to a Trust, ITAT held that activity of organizing meetings and giving awards to eminent people do not fit into the definition of charitable purpose under Income Tax Act, 1961.
If a claim made by the assessee has been allowed at one stage and later on has been disallowed, ostensibly, the assessee can said to have some bona fide belief for making such a claim.
