Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Features of forthcoming release of TDS/TCS – Return Preparation Utility (RPU) Version 4.4 (VB based) and Version 1.2 (Java based) and TDS/TCS – File Validation Utility (FVU) (Version 4.7 and 2.143) It is proposed to release new version of NSDL e-Gov TDS/TCS – Return Preparation Utility (RPU) and File Validation Utility (FVU) tentatively on 19th […]
Flipkart, Snapdeal, Amazon!! Do they sound familiar? Of course they do. There may hardly be any person who has not heard of these E-Commerce behemoths. E-Commerce is the in thing. Anything even remotely related to E-Commerce will sell like hot potatoes. With million dollar valuations and surplus funds, these giants are here to stay.
CS S. Dhanapal Exemptions and Relaxations to Nidhi Companies From Few Provisions of Companies Act, 2013 (To Be Notified In Official Gazette) The Companies Act, 2013 has given due recognition to Nidhi Companies by treating them as a special class of companies. An entire Chapter, namely Chapter XXVI has been devoted to Nidhi Companies and […]
CIT Vs. G.K. Properties Private Limited (Andhra Pradesh HC) Merely because the assessee made a claim which was not acceptable ipso-facto cannot be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had received a loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs in cash on 10.05.2009 thereby violating the provisions of section 269S of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271D of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 25.04.2013 which was duly served on the assessee.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that all the persons questioned have confirmed that cheques have been handed over to the appellant only as a measure of security for supply of scrap or for the purpose of obtaining the loan, but all of them have denied having obtained any loan from the appellant. The statements given by those people remains uncontroverted.
The Hon’ble Tribunal agreeing to the contentions of the assessee held that regarding GBR, payments made to them were only towards reimbursement of shipment charges and therefore, no tax was deducted at source. Assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as reimbursement of expenses do not consist the income of the recipient
The Hon’ble Tribunal while relying on the Judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the Assessee’s own case which was having similar facts in which it was observed that the advance was treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) because it was converted as advance in the name of assessee merely through book entries and actually no money
The CIT(A) remanded the matter and according to the remand report cash deposits were not explainable as there was cash in hand. Also, it was came to known that Assessee maintained one more account in Vijaya Bank which was not shown to the Department. Regarding the rental receipts it was observed by the AO
Revenue submitted that there was no change of opinion as contended by assessee and accepted by the Ld.CIT(A) as assessee has not furnished ‘Project Completion Certificate’ nor furnished the complete details of AOP as pointed out by the AO. It was the submission that the original project has started way back in 1996 and therefore
