Assessee filed ROI claiming relief u/s 90 but did not file Form No.67. Form was subsequently filed beyond the due date as per under Rule. CPC did not give credit for foreign tax.
SC held that no penalty shall be leviable under Section 271C of Income Tax Act for mere belated remittance of TDS after deducting
CIT Vs Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court allows Revenue’s appeal quashing the Bombay High court order that had set aside CIT’s revisionary order passed under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. CIT in exercise of the powers u/s 263 and in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, set aside the […]
Subramanya Karthik Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee proceed on the assumption that the disallowance of employees’ share of PF and ESI paid beyond the due dates under relevant law has been made only under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, while in the intimation under […]
Delayed employees PF remittance Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services – Under s.143(1), power to disallow. Tribunal decisions divergent.
Jila ALP Sankhyak Bachat Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) Deductions otherwise disallowable under the Act but could not be disallowed in 143(1) – Eg 80P deduction AY 18-19 to AY 20-21 Assessee -Credit Co-operative Society, claiming deduction u/s.80P filed its ROI A.Y.2018-19 beyond the due date u/s 139(1). CPC in its Intimation […]
A rectification, on the other hand, can be filed only after assessee receives an intimation u/s 143(1) or assessment order is passed and intimated to the assessee. So rectification application is more appropriate a remedy when assessment is complete and assessee claims on the basis of the assessment record available with the Ld. AO, that there is a mistake apparent in the order arising from the assessment record and same be rectified.
Assessee, a retired bank employee earning pension, deposited Rs.15 lakhs cash in his bank account on 13.11.2016 which he explained as withdrawal on 13.10.2015 or a perceived need and kept the cash with him and the very same cash was deposited . AO rejected the explanation for the reason that the assessee failed to explain the perceived need for which cash was withdrawn holding that no prudent person would keep cash and lose interest if he deposits the money in FD. AO treated the cash deposit u/s 69A. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
Writ petition were filed challenging the order dismissing the Petitioner’s application for stay of demand and directing the Petitioner to pay 20% of the total outstanding demand.
Rural agricultural land converted for non-agricultural purposes but factually continued to be used for agriculture is not a capital asset in spite of conversion
