It is an admitted position that theft/ fraud had indeed taken place in the assessee company and the AO had nowhere doubted the fact of fraud but he disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that the assessee could not establish the fact of fraud like non- production of copy of FIR and not taking any legal action against the employee who was involved in this activity of fraud.
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 3.12.2013 for A.Y 2009-10 wherein the Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal
It was held that impounded loose sheet can at the most be termed as dumb document which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not relied upon and made the basis of addition.
Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies in respect of physician sample etc. has remained controversial issue. The recent decision of Mumbai ITAT in DCIT vs. PHL Pharma P. Ltd, Mumbai has thrown new light on the issue.
Assessee cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers.
Onus is on the assessee company to bring on record the cogent evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction which in the instant case the assessee is not able to prove the same as per the facts emerging from the records and material before us as […]
In all these appeals preferred by the assessee, the action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs.8,53,281 in assessment year 2006-07, Rs.73,54,710 in assessment year 2007-08, Rs.6,81 ,61 5 in assessment year 2008-09, Rs.49,48,020 in assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.10,56,756 in assessment year 2010-11 has been questioned.
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,
