28,537 TANs of Government deductors filed their quarterly TDS statement late. 97 Deductors of Income Tax Department have files their quarterly TDS statement late during period from 01.07.2012 to 01.03.2014.
The Tribunal while upholding the levy of penalty had concluded that the assessee had failed to substantiate that the gift received was genuine. The plea of the assessee that the gift was received due to his financial difficulty was also negated on appreciation of material on record.
he Division Bench held that a legal practitioner having an office cannot be said to be carrying on commercial activity and would not fall within the definition of the expression commercial establishment.
In this matter, the Hon ’ble Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the judgment of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal holding that the Tribunal was not justified in deciding the appeal on merits of the adjudication order when the appeal before it was against the order passed by the first appellate authority dismissing the appeal on non-deposit of pre-deposit
A plain reading of the Section 269SS indicates that (the import of the above provision is limited) it applies to a transaction where a deposit or a loan is accepted by an assessee, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee draft.
Hon’ble Odisha High Court has granted stay on the recovery of Late fee charged Under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act,1961. In Separate cases Hon’ble Bombay, Rajashthan, Kerala and Karnataka High Court has already stayed the Recovery Proceeding U/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act,1961 till the final verdict in the case.
There cannot be any dispute to the preposition that the penalty is leviable under Section 271(1) (c) when any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The present is not a case of concealment of particulars of any income of the assessee.
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT held that execution of outsourced transportation work without any assistance from the outsourcer is a clear case of sub-contracting making the person outsourcing his contract liable to deduct tax on the payments made to sub-contractors u/s 194C.
Presumably, the case of the assessee was that price offered by the buyer was the highest prevailing price in the market. If this is his case then it is difficult to accept the proposition that the assessee had accepted that the price fixed by the District Sub Registrar was the fair market value
Section 271(1)(c) empowers inter alia the Assessing Officer, where he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, to direct the payment of penalty. Sub-section (1B) was introduced by way of an amendment by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1989. Sub-section (1B) reads as follows
