Category: Income Tax
When assessee during assessment proceedings voluntarily admitted mistake then mere absence of revised return would not justify penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2738 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: CIT Vs. Man Industries Ltd.(2018) 164 DTR (Bom) 165 CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits …
Non application of section 56(2)(viia) to fresh issue of shares contrary to express provisions and legislative intent – CBDT clarifies again Circular No. 03/2019 F.No. 173/616/2018-ITA.IGovernment of IndiaMinistry of FinanceDepartment of Revenue(Central Board of Direct Taxes) North Block, New Delhi,Dated the 21st January, 2019 Subject: Applicability of section …
For discrepancy in salary figure between Form No. 16 and 26AS it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2737 (2019) (01) ITAT During scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, …
CBDT gives 21 days time to ITR non-filers to file their returns for AY 2018-19 CBDT identifies non-filers through Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS) by using Data Analytics and request the Non-filers to assess their tax liability for AY 2018-19 and file the Income Tax Returns (ITR) or submit …
Revised computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 permissible having regard to Section 10A (5) and Section 80A(5) of the Act ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2736 (2019) (01) HC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) …
Acceptance of loans by passing journal entries in books of accounts not in violation of section 269SS hence no penalty u/s 271D imposable – SC dismisses SLP of ITD ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2735 (2019) (01) SC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. Premier Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 372 ITR 180. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. 262 ITR 260 Sunflower Builders Vs. Dy.CIT, 1997 (61) ITD (Pune) 227, Asst.CIT …
News of en masse prosecution notices to small companies for TDS default are completely misleading and full of factual inaccuracies- CBDT Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Press Release 20.01.2019 New Delhi: Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) today said that certain news items that appeared in a section …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed by CIT without recording satisfaction in revision order 263. Provision of Section 271(1B) not applicable as CIT is not AO u/s 2(7) of Income Tax Act, 1961. ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2732 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: …
Validity of Penalty notice non striking off relevant limb u/s 271(1)(c) upheld when subsequent opportunity notices sent by AO were not challenged ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2731 (2019) (01) ITAT The assessee had filed the instant appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) upholding the penalty …
When ITAT inspected documents furnished in response to show-cause notice u/s 263 and found transactions not bogus, no interference was called. Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the Revenue ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2729 (2019) (01) SC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: The Revenue had filed an Income …
