Direct Tax Basket 2015-TIOL-82-ITAT-RAJKOT ACIT Vs Balaji Wafers Pvt Ltd Income Tax – Section 271(1)(c) Keywords – Penalty, search, immunity from penalty, admission of concealed income. Whether Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) does not make any distinction between the previous year which has ended before the date of search and the previous year which is to end on or after the date of search and therefore when the assessee filed his returns for earlier years admitting a larger income and also paid tax together with interest after his statement was recorded under s. 132(4), he was entitled to immunity under Explanation 5 to s. 271(1)(c) and penalty was not leviable – Whether Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) specifically provides for immunity from penalty in case of admission of concealed income recorded during search. - Revenues appeal dismissed : RAJKOT ITAT 2015-TIOL-81-ITAT-MUM Bhumiraj Constructions Vs JCIT Income Tax - Section 145(3) Where the AO was justified in observing that assessee was following project completion method when the assessee was following percentage completion method of accounting for recognizing its profit of the projects under construction and sale of flats which was completed and the assessee has duly declared profit on the basis of sales made during the year - Whether the allegation of AO that the assessee did not declare any profit with regard to work-in-progress was justified when the assessee was following percentage completion method and has offered for taxation the amount of Rs.3,60,509/- and Rs.474,060/- respectively for the said projects, the work of which was under progress - Whether disallowance of business expenditure of Rs.65,68,500/- was justified when payments so made was towards compensation to the customers, who have booked their flats and the same was paid for the reason of commercial expediency. - Assessees appeals partly Allowed : MUMBAI ITAT Indirect Tax Basket CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION 2015-TIOL-169-CESTAT-MUM CCE Vs M/s Padmashri Dr V V Patil SSK Ltd CE - Respondent has paid ST on Manpower Recruitment Agency Service and taken suo motu credit - An error was committed by respondent but rectified immediately on pointing out by department - no mala fide intention of respondent to take inadmissible credit - Commissioner (A) has rightly dropped penalty – No infirmity in impugned order so same is upheld: CESTAT [Para 6] - Revenues appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT CUSTOMS SECTION 2015-TIOL-170-CESTAT-MUM + Story Abbott Health Care Pvt Ltd Vs CC Cus - Pediasure & Ensure are instant food mixes meant for different age groups - Notification 02/2011-CE does not stipulate that it should be for consumption by all people or by all age groups - exemption available - appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 5.1, 6] - Appeals allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
Posted on: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:42:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015