It is a settled principle that the power of levying penalty or not is discretionary and not mandatory. The law requires that whenever the AO is to exercise his discretion then it is the AO alone who is to exercise that discretion and the appellate authority cannot exercise that discretion on the part of the AO.
Western Maharashtra Development Corpn. Ltd vs. Bajaj Auto Limited [MANU/MH/0109/ 2010]. In a decision, which is likely to have a wide impact on joint ventures/ investment in public companies, the Bombay High Court (“Court”) has recently held that any clause in an agreement which restricts the free transferability of shares of public companies is void and non- enforceable
In our opinion, the Section 269SS and 271D are not applicable to the fact of the case since the assessee in this case received back the money in cash and not advanced money or accepted the loan in cash. The penalty In this case cannot be levied u/s 271D of the Act. for receiving the cash from the borrower, by the assessee.
Provisions of s. 124(3) are self- explanatory. No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Undisputedly, assessee did not raise this issue either after the expiry of one month from the date
A bare reading of s. 2(28A) would reveal that interest is payable in respect of ‘moneys borrowed’ or ‘debt incurred’. It, of course, would include a deposit, claim or other similar right or application of any service fee or other charges in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred. All the subscribers/ members of the chit contribute moneys each month and bid takes place among the members.
In respect of AY 2004- 05, the assessee computed its book profits u/s 115JB by claiming a deduction for provision for doubtful debts and advances and the same was allowed vide order u/s 143 (3). On 18.07.2008 (within 4 years), the AO issued a notice u/s 148 inter alia on the ground that the provision for doubtful debts had to be added back to the book profits.
CIT Vs Himgiri Foods Limited (Gujarat High Court)- On a plain reading of section 143(1B) it is apparent that the provision mandates that if after the issuance of intimation, a revised return is furnished by an assessee under sub-section (5) section 139 it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to process the revised return and amend the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a)
This is assesses’s appeal for the assessment year 2000-01 against the Id. CIT(A)’s order dated 27.1.2006 confirming the AO’s action in holding that the assessee had a business connection in India u/s 9 of the Income Tax Act and that M/s. BBC Worldwide (lndia)
The assessee has filed these appeals challenging the respective orders of Learned CIT (A)-VI Mumbai for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. As the issue as well as facts are identical hence both these appeals are disposed off by this common order.
The assessee has been carrying out this activity in an organized manner with the help of heavy machinery and computer. Its activity is not as simply as mixing of sand, cement etc. by a labourer on the right side.
