Recently ITAT-SB at Hyderabad in Nagarjuna’s case held that even if a non resident does not obtain a PAN, the tax deductor need not deduct TDS at higher rate of 20%.
In respect of levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act the interest is to be computed for the period from the date from which the tax was deductable to the date of filing of the return by the deductee (VTU).
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer but when the basis i.e. quantum addition has itself been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench,
These bunch of miscellaneous applications have been filed by different assessees viz., Reliance Communications Ltd., (formerly known as Reliance Infocom Ltd.), Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., Reliance BPO Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Reliance Infostream Pvt. Ltd.) and Reliance Telecom Ltd.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08 in the matter of order passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act.
ITAT have consistently held that the internet charges have to be excluded both from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that any receipt directly and intimately linked with the procurement of capital asset is in the nature of capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. So such brokerage cannot be taxed in the hand of property buyer.
The assessee, a civil contractor, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring income of Rs. 30,65,277/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) vide order dated 14.03.2013 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 25,11,68,150/- in view of the following additions/disallowances
Provisions of section 147/148 even otherwise are for the benefit of the Revenue and not for the benefit of the assessee. If there was any mistake on the part of the assessee in filing his return of income, which was duly accepted by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1), the filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not the proper remedy to correct the same.
Simply because the Assessee could not produce the dealers, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer could have made further investigations to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions.
