ITAT Kolkatta has held In the case of Menally Sayaji Engineering Ltd. VS -CIT that if assessee failed to deduct TDS during the previous year on payments of management service fee and royalty debited to the profit and loss account and if in his Assessment Order Passed U/s. 143(3)
In the present case also the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2010 in the name of the deceased assessee and claimed to have been served upon the deceased assessee who had already expired on 06.12.2002.
In the case of DCIT vs. M/s Jindal Photo Limited in I.T.A. No. 814/Del/2011, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has also expressed similar view, in which it has been held that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is pre-requisite to invoke the provisions of Rule 8D.
G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to levy of fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 while processing the statement furnished by the assessees under Section 200A of the Act which was held as unsustainable
Both assessee and revenue are in appeal against the action of deletion of penalty u/s 271AAA. CIT (A) has deleted part of penalty levied but another part of the penalty was retained by him. Assessee is in appeal against the retention order and revenue is against the deletion of penalty.
The language of section 14A includes that AO must record a satisfaction if he was unsatisfied with any incorrect claim of the assessee. If he failed to record such a finding then it cannot be said that he rightly invoked provision of section 14A.
The ITAT Chennai in the case of M/s AVM Films Studios held that entire lease rental received in first year of assignment of film rights with a condition that the same is not refundable in any circumstances is taxable in that year itself and cannot be spread over the period of lease.
Whether CIT (A) has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by assessee. Whether CIT (A) was right in sustaining the additions made by AO which are not applicable to the assessee.
Whether addition made by AO for undisclosed income of Rs 2,68,11,454/- is justifiable in view of the fact that assessee has rebutted onus cast of him with the help of information/ documents/evidence, which he could have made to support his claimed that he has not done any transaction with alleged party.
In the instant case, there was a reasonable cause in the assessee not mentioning the correct PANs in respect of a few deductees at the time of originally filing e-TDS quarterly statement of deduction of tax in Form No.26Q, which were in fact, not available with the assessee at the material time.
