The assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 5 lacs imposed by the Assessing Officer as affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. He had filed return on 30-04-2007.
1.ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Asst. DIT Vs M/s Hongkong and Shanghani Banking Corporation Ltd that the broken period interest paid would be allowed to the assessee after relying the case of the assessee itself in The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd V/s DCIT
ITAT held in Acclaris Business Solutions Lvt Ltd. Vs I.T.O that only those companies could be compared for calculating ALP which were functionally similar. Those companies which were not performing similar functions could not be compared for calculating ALP.
ITAT held in Haier Appliances India Ltd Vs DCIT and Haier Appliances India Ltd Vs ACIT after relying on the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd reported in (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Delhi) that the above transaction of AMP
ITAT Delhi held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd. that we find that this amount represents unpaid sales tax liability and the same was disclosed itself by the assessee as a contingent liability.
CIT Vs. V/s. M/s. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In terms of Chapter X of the Act, redetermination of the consideration is to be done only with regard to income arising from International Transactions on determination of ALP.
ITO Vs M/s Citizen Scales (I) P. Ltd. (ITAT MUMBAI)-The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We note that in para 4 of the assessment order it has been categorically recorded that there was a mistake in computation of book profit and the same was pointed out by the Assessing Officer
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of trading in jewellery. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 01.11.2004 declaring a loss of 1,81,69,142/-.
ACIT Vs M/s. Tirupati Enterprises (ITAT KOLKATA) We hold that merely for non-prosecution of original document before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings, the transaction per se cannot be doubted with when the Xerox copies with supporting documents were duly furnished before the Assessing Officer.
M/s. Palco Distributors Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Only premise of the AO for making addition is that assessee could not produce purchase bills for a sum of Rs.21,72,083/- having 526 items. We find that the items are properly recorded means the assessee has explained the source of acquisition
