Mere defect in the notice u/s 274 do not vitiates the penalty proceedings and no prejudice was caused to the assessee by non- marking of appropriate clause. Addition for Bogus purchases cannot be made under Section 69C as ‘unexplained expenditure’ if purchase are duly disclosed and payments are made through banking channels. The fact that the sellers are not traceable and the assessee surrendered the bogus purchases does not justify levy of penalty.
Ram Gopal Varma will ensure that in film Sarkar 3 releasing on Friday, 12th May 2017 credit is given to Mr Nilesh Girkar in exactly the following manner: Based on a story written by Nilesh Girkar
Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments.
ITATwas justified in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 3,37,84,348/- towards the interest paid on the loans taken and expenditure on other items connected connected herewith for establishment of the unit, while affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
However, there is an explanation to the aforesaid and in case of a composite order of any High Court or any Appellate Authority, which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, Appeal shall be filed in respect of all such assessment years even if the tax effect is less than the prescribed monetary limits in any of the years.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that interest can be allowed on Refund of interest Waived by the Department under section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The bench was hearing a bunch of writ petitions wherein the petitioners raised a question that whether the expression ‘in any other case’ occurring in Section 244A (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act would include the amount of refund which constitutes the interest that has been waived by the Income Tax Department under Section 220 (2A) of the Act?
A new writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court by Ramon Magsaysay Award winner Shanta Sinha and feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon challenging the vires of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
The object behind the introduction of Section 14A of the Act by the Finance Act of 2001 is clear and unambiguous. The legislature intended to check the claim of allowance of expenditure incurred towards earning exempted income in a situation where an assessee has both exempted and non-exempted income or includible or non-includible income.
Penalty proceedings initiated U/s 275 on issues unrelated to assessment of income (such as for s. 269SS/ 269T & TDS defaults), time limit runs from date on which the AO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad bench, in the case of DRS Warehousing (South) Vs. ITO, held that the interest on FDs earned during the pre-operative period is taxable as ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provisions of Income Tax Act.
