Mitsu Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
S. 271(1)(c): In the
absence of a clear-cut finding by the AO as to whether it is a case of
'concealment' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars', penalty cannot be levied it is incumbent upon the AO to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income have been furnished by the assessee. In the absence of a clear-cut finding reached by the AO, and, on that ground alone, the order […]
ACIT vs. Crescent Property Developers (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 271(1)(c): No
penalty can be levied solely on the basis of admission made during survey if
there is no corroborative evidence & no fault is found with the return of
income Though the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 1 crore during the survey on account of discrepencies, errors and omissions in the accounts, at the stage of the assessment, there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the course of survey consequent upon which the assessee was cornered to surrender the said sum […]
Dilip Anand Vazirani vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 2(47((v)/(vi):
Mere execution of a development agreement does not result in a
"transfer" if the approval of the municality is delayed and the
developer has not started work The assessee had received advance amounts much earlier to the execution of development agreement, probably on the strength of the MOU. The property was encumbered with tenancy rights of many persons and the release of tenancy right was completed only in January, 2005. Further, the approval from municipal corporation was also got delayed and the […]
Bipinchandra K. Bhatia vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
S. 28/ 37(1): Even if
the business is illegal, a loss which is incidental to such business has to be
allowed u/s 28 and the Explanation to s. 37(1) has no bearing The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.40,34,898 on account of gold seized by the Custom Authorities. The Tribunal rejected the claim by relying on the Explanation to s. 37(1) of the Act. The assessee claimed before the High Court that as the loss is incidental to the business carried on, the loss is allowable u/s […]
ITO vs. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 9(1)(vii):
Separate agreements for supply & installation cannot be regarded as one
composite contract. However, as the installation is an "assembly"
project, it will not constitute "fees for technical services". Even
if such services are FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) they are excluded from taxation in India
by Article 14 of the India-Swiss DTAA as the recipient has no PE in India (i) It is undisputed that the mailroom equipment comprised of various units and was hence a complex equipment. The bid document clearly stipulated that the units/components of the mailroom equipment would have to be installed and commissioned by trained and qualified personnel of the supplier, who shall, then provide training to the assessee’s employees, on […]
No comments:
Post a Comment