In the present case, the very addition in the declared income has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore, there is no foundation to compute the penalty upon the assessee. In view of the deletion of the additions in the quantum appeal, no penalty is imposable upon the assessee.
Binayak Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The Assessing Officer observed from the evidence furnished by the assessee that during the year, the assessee has incurred sales promotion expenses to the tune of Rs.10,51,242/-. The Assessing Officer noted that these payments were made towards payment of credit card bills of Ms. Priyanka Jhunjhunwala and […]
Undisputedly, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has treated the difference between the sale price and FMV of the shares of the assessee as income of the assessee.
HC held that Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching GST appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, the amount of penalty and interest demanded by authority shall remain stayed during pendency of the writ petition subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire amount of tax demanded.
PCIT Vs Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited (Calcutta High Court) The tribunal after taking note of the factual position noted that the CIT(A) has taken specific note of the fact that the expenses claimed by the assessee as prior period, the liability to pay had crystallized during the relevant previous year and therefore the claim […]
Whether refund can be rejected without putting the appellant on notice for the ground on which refund was rejected. Insofar as the rejection of refund of Rs.13,77,971/- is concerned, the appellant were not issued with a show cause notice for the ground on which the same was rejected. The appellant did not get opportunity to present their case
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Ultra Tech Cement Limited (CESTAT Kolkata) Respondent submits that when the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of imposing penalty does not arise. He further submits that the impugned order has erroneously invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act on the ground of willful […]
In this case Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Original Authority as it was passed in the violation of principles of natural justice and therefore being not sustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that when assessee has explained the source for excess stock found during the course of survey, then, income offered towards excess stock cannot be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Act.
Gujarat High Court held that re-opening sought on the basis of assessment record without any fresh tangible material is unsustainable in law.
