Merely because a person has not deducted tax at source from a remittance abroad, it cannot be inferred that the person making a remittance has committed a failure in discharging his tax withholding obligations because such obligations come into existence only when recipient has a tax liability in India.
It is well settled that any adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act.
It is held that assessee is entitled to additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on power plant and the windmill installed during the year.
ITAT Chennai held in the case of Shanthilal D Jain Vs DCIT that Penalty under Section 271B for failure to get account audited not leviable when books of accounts are not maintained.
M. D. Infra Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat) Facts- The assessee firm is in the real estate business. A search action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was carried out on 17-07-2012 in the group cases of Dalia (Badshah) Babariya Group of Surat. The AO observed the modus operandi for purchase of said […]
We note that the term Cooperative Bank is specifically excluded in the first proviso to sub clause (a) of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO has rightly computed the deduction eligible U/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. We therefore uphold the order of the Ld. AO on this ground.
ACIT Vs Electrosteel Casting Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) It is clear from the rival contentions that determination price at which Power generated can be sold is subject to statutory control under the provisions of Section 61 & 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in its decision rendered in the case of […]
B.B. Verma Vs JCIT (ITAT Raipur) Facts- The assessee firm which is engaged in the business of a contractor had filed its original ROI for the AY 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, declaring an income of Rs.85,46,970/-. The ROI filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee […]
We are of the view that since the issue raised in the show-cause notice has already been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in detail by conducting adequate enquiry calling for material evidence and other documents supporting the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act, proper application of mind and taken a plausible view in light of the settled judicial precedence as referred by the ld. counsel for the assessee, there remains no scope for the ld. PCIT to invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act.
AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income.
