Sponsored
    Follow Us:

GST paid before ITR Filing due date but after ITR filing allowable- Section 43B

June 22, 2022 2187 Views 0 comment Print

Padagouda Hanamanthgouda Patil Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT noticed that assessee has filed his return of income on 15.10.2018. However, it is the submission of the assessee that the GST amount cited above was paid on 16.10.2018. Hence by the time, the return of income was filed, the assessee has not paid the GST amount […]

Section 10(23B) Exemption cannot be denied for Mere Technical Violation

June 22, 2022 3273 Views 0 comment Print

Barapur Gramodyog Vikas Samiti Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The AO while completing the assessment noticed that the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(23B) of the Act as the assessee was engaged in the business of production, sale, etc. of Khadi and Products of Village Industries. The AO was of the view that in view of proviso […]

CIT cannot summarily dismiss Appeal for Non-Prosecution

June 22, 2022 1359 Views 0 comment Print

Vishnu Kumar Sinha (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur) In this case CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal for non-prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issue which did arise from the impugned order and has been assailed by the assessee before him. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the manner […]

Section 271(1)(c) penalty quashed for not specifying inaccurate or false particulars

June 22, 2022 825 Views 0 comment Print

Clean Science & Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the penalty order as well as the assessment order, it would reveal that the penalty was levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income […]

No section 271(1)(c) penalty for mere wrong claim of TDS

June 22, 2022 753 Views 0 comment Print

The only fault of the assessee was of claiming Tax deducted at source wrongly. The learned Assessing Officer should have refused the credit of such TDS but should not have taxed interest income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, even on the merits the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied.

Expenses reimbursed to CA Firm not subject to Service Tax

June 22, 2022 894 Views 0 comment Print

RMA & Associates Vs Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The appellant was engaged in providing chartered accountant services. The dispute in the present appeal is regarding the non-payment of service tax on the amount representing reimbursement of expenses like conveyance, travelling and mobile expenses. The issue, in respect of reimbursable expenses has been […]

ITAT deletes addition for cash deposit during demonetisation out of Cash withdrawal

June 22, 2022 1335 Views 0 comment Print

Col. Ranjan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that […]

Section 271(1)(c) penalty quantification dependent upon additions to income

June 22, 2022 360 Views 0 comment Print

Bharat Rana Chaudhry Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that sub-clause (iii) of section 271(l)(c) provides mechanism for quantification of penalty. It contemplates that the assessee would be directed to pay a sum in addition to taxes, if any, payable him, which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times the […]

Share application money – ITAT quashes Section 263 Revision proceedings

June 22, 2022 516 Views 0 comment Print

Armajaro Trading India (P) Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Cochin) In the instant case, one of the reasons for limited scrutiny was for the purpose of examining whether the share application money received by the assessee was genuine and was from disclosed sources. It is seen that the assessee had shown an amount of Rs.2,55,94,110 as […]

ITAT explains impact on taxability when treaty not contains FTS clause

June 22, 2022 5382 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs Michelin ROH Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has a company incorporated in Thailand and offers a number of services, such as, business planning and coordination, engineering services, product research and development etc. to its Indian subsidiary. On offering these engineering services, the assessee obtained a […]

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031