P.M.S Diesels vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
S. 40(a)(ia): Argument that the disallowance for want of TDS can be made only for amounts "payable" as of 31st March and not for those already "paid" is not correct. In Liminie dismissal of SLP in Vector Shipping does not mean Supreme Court has confirmed the view of the HC. However, ITAT to consider whether payees have already paid tax
The argument that section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts which are “payable” and not to amounts that are already “paid” is also not acceptable (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Crescent Export Syndicate (2013) 216 Taxman 258 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sikandar Khan N. Tunwar (2013) 357 ITR 312 (Guj) followed)
KPC Medical College & Hospital vs. DCIT (ITAT
Kolkata)
S. 271(1)(c): Law on levy of penalty in a case where satisfaction is recorded in s. 153C/153D assessments by AO who is common to the searched party and the assessee explained
The attempt at the end of the assessee is that there should be a straight jacket system, whereby the satisfaction recorded even by the same AO then, that should be placed in the file of searched person and if it is placed in some other cupboard in his room by the AO then, there cannot be any satisfaction, we fail to appreciate that technical approach at the end of the assessee. The law does not require the manner and the procedure of keeping the files. The section only requires that a satisfaction be recorded and it should be during the period propounded by Hon’ble S.C. in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears 362 ITR 673
CIT vs. Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
S. 271D: Section 269SS does not apply to non-monetary book entry transactions of loans and advances
Section 269SS indicates that it applies to a transaction where a deposit or a loan is accepted by an assessee, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee draft. The ambit of the Section is clearly restricted to transaction involving acceptance of money and not intended to affect cases where a debit or a liability arises on account of book entries
ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma (ITAT Delhi)
S. 275(1)(a): Law on time limit for passing penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) explained. Challenge by assessee to validity of penalty order entertained in Dept's appeal despite lack of C. O. /cross-appeal by assessee
On a combined reading of Section 275(1)(a) along with its proviso it becomes clear that main section 275(1)(a) talks of a period of six months from the date on which the order is received by commissioner and main section also talks of orders passed by commissioner appeals as well as by tribunal talk whereas the proviso which is applicable from 01.06.2003 talks about orders passed by Commissioner Appeals only and here, the period of limitation for passing penalty order is one year from the date Commissioner receives Tribunal order
ITO vs. Shubhashri Panicker (ITAT Jaipur)
S. 282: The postal authorities are the agent of the recipient. There is a presumption that handing over notice to the postal department means that it has been served on the assessee
Since the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has not been received back unserved within thirty days of its issuance, there would be presumption under the law that notice has been duly served upon the assessee. The notice was under transmission by handing over to the postal authority who acted as an agent of the recipient.
DCIT vs. Jyoti Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad)
S. 43B(e): Conversion of outstanding interest into a loan does not constitute "actual payment" of the interest so as to qualify for deduction
On perusing Section 43B(e), it is seen that interest on any loan or advance from a schedule bank, in accordance with terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loans or advance, would be allowed as deduction in the previous year in which sum is actually paid by the Assessee
No comments:
Post a Comment