ITAT Ahmedabad held that PFRDA Act, 2013 doesn’t prescribed any due date for payment of employee’s contribution to National Pension Scheme (NPS). Thus, since payment is made before filing return u/s. 139(1), the same is allowable u/s. 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The present Company petition is filed on 27/07/2023, under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, r/w. Rule 6 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016, by JANUS GBAC LIMITED.
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons of cash deposit during the demonetization. During assessment, AO noted that assessee have made cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- in his bank account.
The petitioner is a legal heir of late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh who filed the original return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31.08.2015. Late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh expired on 30.09.2019.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization confirmed by both AO and CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order. However, majority of cash deposits are prior to demonetization period. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh verification.
Kerala High Court held that show cause notice u/s. 148A in the name of deceased person untenable. Accordingly, writ petition allowed with direction to issue fresh notice under section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Surat held that when any expense is not claimed, no disallowance is permissible. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 43B on account of unpaid service tax not warranted as the same is not claimed as deduction in P&L account.
However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued and therefore, AO completed the scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee for the AY 2017-18 as best judgment assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and passed the assessment order.
ITAT Delhi held that reasons recorded for exercising the jurisdiction is plagued with several defects of critical nature. Thus, due to lack of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act reassessment proceedings held as bad-in-law.
Allahabad High Court held that benefit of Input Tax Credit in case of mentioning of wrong GSTIN of recipient needs to be analysed as per Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST. Accordingly, order set aside with direction.
