Claim cannot be denied if sufficient documents are in hand of AO even though the party does not reply to notice issued u/s 133(6); (even though the party confirmation is not available against notice issued u/s 133(6)).
In, the present case the Hon’ble High Court held that the deposit of tax before the initiation of penalty proceedings will not help Assessee in escaping the penalty proceedings u/s 221. Also, the point of Financial hardship, diverse locations and lack of computerization will not give any relief to the assessee.
In the present case the Hon’ble High Court while accepting the Writ filed by the assessee, restored the matter back to the Tribunal by observing that the Judicial Functions should not be performed in the arbitrary manner.
In, the present facts of the Case the Hon’ble High Court held that no penalty could be levied until it is proved that there was an active concealment or there is deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Filing of appeal under Section 260A of the Act is a serious issue. The parties who seek to file such appeals must do so after due application of mind and not raise frivolous / concluded issues. This is certainly expected of the State.
In the present facts of the Case there were two vital issues contended by the Revenue which were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that the amount received as restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is taxable only as a revenue receipt w.e.f. 1/4/2003.
CIT vs. M/s Hind Agro Industries (ITAT Chandigarh) The assessee pleaded since it is not feasible to maintain stock register, therefore books should not be rejected CIT (A) upheld rejection of books , but considered G.P. rate taken by A.O. of previous year
In the case of Smt. Uppala Rajani Vs. DCIT Hyderabad Bench of ITAT have held that the amount advanced for business transaction between parties regarding supply of material and labour, are not such to fall within the definition of ‘deemed dividend’ under S.2(22)(e).
It was held that wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be denied the immunity under section 271AAA (2) only because entire tax, along with interest, was not paid before filing of income tax return or, for that purpose, before concluding the assessment proceedings.
Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of K.R.C.D Pvt. Ltd. held that the royalty paid by the principal manufacturer to some other person for use of any copyright is not includible in the assessable value of the final goods cleared from the factory of job worker as the royalty paid by the principal manufacturer do not flow any additional consideration to the job worker.
