Rajesh Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Agra) Section 17(1) defines ‘salary’ and ‘perquisite’ separately for the purposes of sections 15 and 16. Section 15 is the charging section qua income from salary, whereas section 16 deals with deduction there-from. Section 17(1)(iv) says that ‘salary’ includes, inter alia, perquisites. Relief u/s 89 is available in respect of […]
Milind Aggarwal Vs ICAI (Delhi High Court) The dispute relates to the result declared by the respondent-institute. The appellants claim that they had cleared Group I/II as per the result circulated through Whatsapp messages and uploaded on Facebook. They rely on the screenshots. The appellants however accept that as per result uploaded on the official […]
Whether the petitioner is correct in contending that he had already suffered the deduction of tax, the mere fact that the deductee did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue could not permit the Income tax Department to recover such amount from the petitioner.
One of the most fundamental bases amongst the other important considerations is that if new materials or documents come to light, the assessee’s income can be revisited and additional amounts brought to tax.
Impugned assessments are non-est in the eyes of law since the DCIT/ACIT, Circle-, Chennai issuing the section 143(2) notice(s) did not have jurisdiction and the assessing authority in Kolkata did not issue such scrutiny notices.
M/s. Supernova System Private Limited Vs. CCIT (Gujarat High Court) CBDT circular issued on 23.12.2014 prescribes compounding fees for offense under section 276C(1) at 100% of the amount sought to be evaded. This para also starts with an expression ‘Section 276C(1)- Wilful attempt to evade tax etc.’ The title of this para thus, is taken […]
Where rental income was received by assessee as owner of flat same was to be assessed under head income from house property and not as business income, as flat was not stock-in-trade in assessee-builder’s case.
M/s. ARCHI-TECHNICS Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) I find that there was delay in payment of service tax which was on account of the reasonable cause as the mother of one of the partner was suffering from heart problem. Further, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Raj […]
Where there was any shortfall due to difference of opinion or taxability of any items or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, assessee could be declared to be assessee-in-default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) and therefore, disallowance made was to be deleted.
When assessee did not receive any amount from its clients, on which services tax was payable, then, the amount claimed by the assessee being unpaid service tax as its liability could not be disallowed under section 43B, as liability to pay service tax in respect of consideration would arise only upon the assessee receiving funds and not otherwise.
