Here the assessee originally did not have the correct PANs of all the persons from whose payments, tax at source was required to be deducted. Despite that, the assessee did deduct tax at source and paid the amount to the exchequer well in time. The only fault of the assessee was in not filling PANs of some of the deductees which were not available at the time of filing e-returns. As soon as the AO issued notice for imposing penalty u/s 272B, the assessee obtained the relevant PANs and complied with the requirement by filing the revised statement.
Respective court was of the view that section 68 has no application because the same had already been taken in income of the assessee so it no where remains undisclosed. Moreover the assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the credit worthiness of the donor by giving the list of the same
Assessing Officer has wrongly stated that Shri Prithvi Singh, father of the assessee has stated in his statement that he had no agricultural land in his name. Since, as per the Statement recorded by AO it is been observed that that Shri Prithvi Singh (father of the assessee) has stated that he has
D.R for the revenue argues that no appeal lies against Appeal Effect Order passed by Assessing officer. The appellant may apply to the Assessing Officer for rectification U/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but no appeal be filed against appeal effect order passed by AO.
The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.
Section 1115JB is non-obstante section and a complete code by itself, which provides that in case of a company, the income tax payable on the total income is computed under the Income tax Act in respect of any previous year is less than 7.5% (which percentage has been increased from time to time) of its book profit,
These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue directed against two separate orders of Learned CIT (A) – II Lucknow both dated 07.01.2013 for A.Y. 2008 – 09 and 2009 – 10. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed by this common order for the sake of convenience.
Regarding the treatment of Arranger fees as fees for technical services, we find that the ld. CIT(A) had treated it to be in the nature of service fee for managing and arranging the finance and, hence, it is the consideration for rendering managerial and consultancy services.
Since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, the expenses of earlier year cannot be allowed in the present year because the assessee had not been able to furnish any evidence to show that the above expenses have crystallized in the present year.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of dealing in shares & securities and has incurred loss from dealing in derivatives (shares futures). It is not the case of the AO that the share futures in which the assessee was dealing were not recorded in recognized Stock Exchange, the loss incurred by the assessee was also not disputed by the AO.
