ITAT held that making of an incorrect claim by assessee which is supported by a report of Chartered Accountant cannot be hold as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted as the claim made under bonafide belief.
It was held that Once the assessment order of the AO in the quantum proceedings was altered by the CIT (A) in a significant way, the very basis of initiation of the penalty proceedings was rendered non-existent. The AO could not have thereafter continued the penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice.
It was held that the Tribunal’s decisions are binding on the lower authorities and cannot be ignored on the sole ground that the Revenue may prefer to file appeal against the same before the higher authorities until and unless the same is set aside by a higher forum.
It was held that when the revenue proceeded to include the value of SEZ exports in computing the total turnover, the same should also have been included in computing export turnover and accordingly the value of export turnover should be equal to the total turnover and the value of SEZ exports should be included in the export turnover (numerator).
Once partnership firm penalized, separate penalty not imposable upon partner of the firm because the partner is not a separate legal entity as there is no difference between the partner and the partnership firm.
The ITAT New Delhi in the above cited case held even export made by assessee through third parties are also to be considered while working out deductions allowable u/s 10B as such exports are deemed exports and recognized by Foreign trade policy for extending export benefits.
As civil work and electric generator are taken to be a part of windmill, rate as is applicable for the depreciation for windmill would apply to the civil foundation and electric turbine generator also.
It is held that Instruction No.1 of 2015 dated 13th January 201shall not hereafter be relied upon to deny refunds to the Assessees in whose cases notices might have been issued under Section 143(2) of the Act.
Amount deposited but not utilized wholly or partly for purchase or construction of new asset within the specified period will be charged to tax under Section 45 in the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of original asset expired.
Assessee submitted the documentary evidence to show that after purchasing the property there was a civil suit filed by the other parties and the assessee could not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed.
