Rajesh Sajjanraj Bafna Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Income Tax Proceedings based on documents found by DGCEI during search not sustainable if CESTAT treat such document as DUMB documents At this stage, it is also imperative to remind that the proceedings under the service tax and the income tax are distinct and independent to each other. […]
ACIT Vs Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru (ITAT Delhi) It has been contended by the revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in admitting additional evidence by way of certificate from the Divisional Commissioner without giving any opportunity to the AO. He submitted that it would be seen from the revenues record itself, i.e. from […]
nce the assessee has initially deposited TDS and furnished Statement in Form 26QB within time, but committed a technical error while depositing TDS resulting in non-grant of TDS to transferor, compelling it to again deposit TDS along-with interest for late deposit, then, in the interests of justice and considering the fact that no loss is caused to the Revenue, the assessee cannot be saddled with levy of late filing fee u/s 234E
Infosys Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: The applicable rate of TDS on subcontracting charges paid to Infosys China should be considered at 10% as per the India-China DTAA instead of 20% as per section 206AA. Held: Assessee was an Indian company, engaged in the business of development and export of computer software and related […]
Neesa Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Since the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated in the present case on the basis of documents which we have held above neither belonged to the assessee nor were incriminating in nature, they were not sufficient for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the Act. The […]
IF car is hired not to perform specific services and charges are not paid on the basis of specific uses but the same is hired for availability of car for particular time or period without specification of particular services and charges paid on fixed basis then such hiring should be considered as rental contract under the provision of section 194I of the Act.
It is clear that the income generated out of earlier release of State Government for its project would have to be converted into State’s equity towards the project and the same cannot be counted as income of BMRCL. Thus, there is no profit motive as the entire fund entrusted and the interest accrued therefrom has to be utilized only for the purpose of scheme. Thus, it has to be capitalized and cannot be considered as revenue receipts.
Clause (iii) of section 2(14) specifically excludes agricultural land of the description given therein from capital asset which means that agricultural land was outside 8 Km. of municipal limits. Accordingly, agricultural land purchased by assessee was not a capital asset and, therefore, section 56(2) (vii)(b) was not applicable to assessee’s case.
Interest under section 234B and 234C is not leviable since it was not possible for the appellant to anticipate the events that were to take place in the next financial year and pay advance tax on the basis of those anticipated events.
Pradeep Sugamchand Kawadiya Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The short point involved in this case as to whether the penalty is sustainable when the same has been initiated and levied without specifying the alleged guilt committed by the assessee either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Brief facts leading to this […]
