S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Concealment of income-Disallowance of claim-Depreciation-[S. 22, 24,32, 271(1)(c)]
Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital. v. DCIT (2024) 206 ITD 90 (Hyd) (Trib.)S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Concealment of income-Disallowance of claim-Depreciation-[S. 22, 24,32, 271(1)(c)]
Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital. v. DCIT (2024) 206 ITD 90 (Hyd) (Trib.)S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Failure to keep maintain-Retain books of accounts-Documents-Not maintained books of account-Penalty cannot be levied. [S. 44AA, 271A]
Balasingam Somasundaram v. ACIT (2024) 206 ITD 643/231 TTJ 350 (Chennai) (Trib.)S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Share broker-Tax audit-Penalty-Commission income constitute turnover and not sale price of commodities-Penalty is deleted. [S.44B]
Parag Hashmukhbhai Davda v. ITO (2024) 206 ITD 456 (Rajkot) (Trib.)S. 271A : Penalty-Failure to keep maintain-Retain books of accounts-Documents-Audit of accounts-Once penalty is levied for non-maintenance of books of account, no penalty under section 271B can be levied. [S.44AB, 271B]
Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija v. ITO (2024) 206 ITD 149 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Returned income and assessed income are same-Penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied.[S. 139]
Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija. v. ITO (2024) 206 ITD 149 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-Depreciation-Mere disallowance of claim penalty cannot be levied.-Penalty also quashed on the ground of limitation. [S. 22, 24, 32, 275]
Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital. v. DCIT (2024) 206 ITD 90 (Hyd) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Failure to deduct tax at source-Revision order is affirmed.[S. 10(38, 14A, 40(a)(i), R.8D]
Simens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 810 (Ahd) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Property held for charitable purposes-Application of accumulated income-AO failed to examine said issue during assessment proceedings, CIT(E) rightly set aside matter to file of AO for making a de novo assessment.[S.11(2), 11(3), 11(3)(d), 143(3)]
Sanganeria Foundations For Health & Education v. CIT (2024) 206 ITD 536 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Rental income from a property-Investment-Income from house property-Assessable as income from house property and not as business income-Revision order is set aside. [S. 23, 28(i), 23, 143(3)]
Effective Teleservices (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 443 (Ahd) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Interest-Enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition Act 1894-Debatable-Revision is not valid. [S. 10(37), 143(3), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 28]
Pawan Kumar. v PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 53 (Delhi) (Trib.)