Explore the Roy Mitra vs. ACIT case (ITA No. 1703/2009) involving Sec. 194C, TDS, and contractual disputes. Key rulings and implications revealed.
Assessee is thus entitled to claim deduction both under Sec.36(1)(vii) and Sec.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The only limitation is that the amount of deduction shall not exceed the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. In the present case there is no dispute that provisions of Sec.36(1)(viia) applies to the Assessee and also the fact the amount of deduction relating to bad debts written off is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account.
If it is to be held that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure and the source of expenditure remains unexplained, the amount can be added under section 69C of the Act. However, if on one hand the amount is added as unexplained expenditure, still it retains the character of the expenditure incurred on the object of trust.
Second appeal could not have been filed against the same order when the first appeal had already been dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). On the other hand, the ld. CIT, DR submitted that the first appeal against the assessment order had been decided and, therefore, the second appeal filed belatedly before the ld. CIT(Appeals) is non-est. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us.
Balance in the shares account is Rs.23,52,580/- whereas as per books of account and as per trial balance it is Rs.22,93,130/- and assessee has failed to explain the difference or substantiate his plea that there is no difference. As such, it is held that since assessee has not been able to explain the difference, therefore, addition is called for which has rightly been confirmed by the CIT(A) whose action is further confirmed and this ground appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
We find that the undisputed fact is that the premises are trading assets and have been shown as stock-in-trade. No rent has been received in respect of these unsold assets. The income from the properties have been shown and accepted to be taxable u/s 28. Unless specifically provided a notional income cannot be brought to tax. In other words, the concept of real income is applicable to computation of business income unless specifically provided otherwise. The assessee has not earned any income from the stock-in-trade. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly allowed the relief to the assessee. In the result, this ground is also dismissed.
At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the assessee company has not received assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 r/w section 143(3) for the assessment year 2002-03 as stated by the Assessing Officer that the order was dispatched by speed post on 31st December, 2009. The company received notice u/s 220(1)(i) of the Act for the outstanding payment and thereafter the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that he has not received the order and requested for certified copy.
DCIT Vs. Pioneer Marbles & Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- Under the scheme of Section 271 AAA, there is a complete paradigm shift so far as penalty in respect of unaccounted income unearthed as a result of search operation carried out on or after 1st June 2007 is concerned. Unlike in the case of penalty under section 271(1)(c), Section 271 AAA, without any reference to findings or presumptions of concealment of income or the findings or presumptions of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, provides that in respect of unaccounted income in the cases where search initiated after 1st June 2007, the assessee is to pay a penalty @ 10% of unaccounted income.
Assessee has made payments to the CDLB for supply of these workers. As long as the assessee has made payments to the CDLB for supply of labour, even when this labour may be treated as employed by the assessee for all practical purposes, the provisions of Section 194 C are clearly attracted. In such a situation, i.e. when labour hired by the assessee through CDLB is considered to be in assessee’s employment, the payments made to CDLB cannot be treated as payments for ‘any work’ , but nevertheless these payments could still be covered by the provisions of Section 194 C because these are payments made for ‘supply of labour’ which are specifically covered by Section 194 C(1).
in case the assessment is set aside by the CIT(A) and setting aside become final, interest u/s. 220(2) has to be charged only after the expiry of 35 days from the date of service of demand notice pursuant to the fresh assessment order. In the case of the assessee, since the original order of assessment was confirmed by the CIT (A) but on further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the issue restored to the AO, it was held that in terms of the circular, the interest u/s. 220(2) has to be charged only from the date of fresh assessment order.
